Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-06-10
WATERv|LLE.
SUPERIOR COURT.
The June Term At Waterville-Judes
Oliver G. Hall Presiding.

is 5000. The case was tried i'll November,
1907, the jury at that time disagreeing.
It was tried again in April. 1908, and
the plaintiffs got a verdict for $36. The
case then went to the law court and
new trial was granted. The case now
comes up for the third time. The case
was opened to the jury yesterday ar
ternoon. The testimony was all in upon
adjournment last evening. This morn
ing the arguments were made and the
charge delivered After being out one
hour the jury returned verdict in
favor of tie plaintiff in the sum OF
$223.S3
The plaintiffs put on the stand A. B.
| Rice Of Bangor, general agent Of the
company, c. L. Phillips of Bangor. who
also at one time was connected with
the company. and Sidney Merrill, for
mer agent Of the company. but now
selling groceries on the road for Ban
gor house.
The defendant Leslie Hubbard, tes-
titled in his own behalf. and also intro
duced as his witnesses Fred E. Blanch-
ard of Bangor and Mrs. Fannie L.
Blanchard.
The plaintiffs witnesses testified that
in the fall of 1906 Mr. Hubbard listed
his farm with the F.. A. Strout Co. at
the agency in Bangor; that in the
spring of 1907 Fred T.. Blanchard called
at the office about some farm that he
had seen advertised and finally went
down to see Mr.. Merrill, who had the
showing Of farms in the section where
the Hubbard farm was located. Mr..
Merrill testified that he recommended
the Hubbard farm to Mr.. Blanchard,
and that later on he learned that he
had purchased the farm. On learning
of the sale he called up Mr.. Hubbard
by telephone and asked him about it,
and was told by Mr.. Hubbard that he
was not doing business with him but
with the New York Office. Mr.. Merrill
informed him that the company was
entitled to it's commission of 5000 in ac
cordance with the contract he had sign
ed. The commission not being paid this
suit followed.
Mr.. Hubbard testified that he did list
signed a contract to pay them GER
tain commission but that after a visit
from Mr. Merrill ne became dissatisfied
and wrote to the company at New
York asking the cost to him of with
he got reply that it would cost $36.
He stated that he sent the $36 and re-
ceivcd a receipted bill for same but
that later on he received e letter from
the New York Office of the company
stating that as they had learned the
farm was sold to customer they had
furnished they We're entitled to their
full commission.
Mr. Blanchard testified in regard to
conversation in Bangor and in Stet-
son with the agents of the company,
and thought that he was not influenced
by what the agents told him. as he and
his wife were brought up in the neigh
bOrhood of the farm and knew much
more about it than the agents could
tell them. Mr.. Blanchard also testified
in relation to the purchase of the farm,
stating that Mr.. Hubbard did not
know how much the withdrawal fee
would be, but thought it was either
$50 or $50. He stated. that he told him
HI would not stand for S36 but that he
would give him $500 and Hubbard
could pay the fee to the Strout Co.. and
finally bought the farm for that
amount.
Williamson & Burleigh of Augusta
represented the plaintiffs in this case.
and H. Fl. Patten, formerly of Bangor,
but row of Boston, represented the de-
PENDANT.
The next case for trial to the jury
was between two Greeks. Spires Pc
iron Of Waterville VS.. Pandelis MOu-
sides of Fairfield. Norman K. Fuller for
the plaintiff and John f. Nelson for the
defendant. The amount sued for was
$19.3S. There was an account in offset
filed for about SO but this amount was
reduced before going to trial to $57.
According to the testimony introduced
these parties had lived together in town
for some months after the plaintiff
came to this country. and had no trou-
bic until the defendant bought small
farm in Fairfield and took the plain
tiff Up there to live with him. both of
them. and a brother of the defendant,
coming down every day to work in the
cotton mill. The plaintiff claimed that
he was to pay board. but no room rent,
ara did not understand that he was to
pay fer being carried back and forth
to the MILL but after being up there
five Or six weeks, according to his
statement and t. weeks according to
the statement of the defendant, he
came back to town. He had paid the
defendant or loaned the defendant.
sums of money during the time he was
with MIN at the farm, and when he
asked for his money bill in setoff was
presented to him, charging him for
board, room rent and for carrying him
back and forth to the mill. Upon this
the suit was started.
Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum
of $685.
Court will come in at 9 o'clock to-
morrow morning