Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-01-19
SUPERIOR COURT.
Hanowe|| Breach Of Con-
tract Argued Monday.
verdictktor the. Plaintiff and
Defence Files Exceptions.
Appealed Case From Gardiner Pc.
lice Court Comes On Today.

only case to be tried during the after
non was that of Roberts ct AL, VS.. j.
Arata OF HauoWell This is a case
where the Commercial Jewelry Co of
Philadelphia brings suit against John
Arata of HallOwell to recover the sum
of $500 Tor jewelry sold the defendant
Beane & Beane for plaintiff; Simmons
for defendant
j. Willard Demarest Of Trenton, n.
J., testified that he was travelling
salesman in the employ of the Com
mercial Jewelry Co. His concern was
placing on the market coupon adver-
Using proposition, whereby the COM
pany placed quantity of goods with
MERCHANTS and coupons We're issued,
which were redeemable with the jew
elry. He was at Arata's place of bus
mess in Hallowell May 1, 1908. He tes-
titled that Arata signed the agreement
in his presence and the contract was
out in evidence. He testified that the
goods were shipped by express, the jew
elry from Philadelphia and the cabinet
in which they were to be displayed by
the defendant from Detroit. The ex-
press was paid on the jewelry, but not
on the case.
1t was admitted by both parties that
If Mr. Mayors, the express agent at
IalloWell, We're there he would testi-
y that a package from the plaintiff
addressed to the defendant was re-
'civ"d at the express office at Halo
we'll somewhere near May 6, and sub
scquently taken to Arata's office and
receipted for by Aratas sister, also
tIx,
received at the express office about a
week later and the charges upon it
aere unpaid. A letter was submitted
from Arata, under date of May 90,
hrowing up the contract upon the
,round that the Commercial Jewelry
Co. did not pay the express upon the
cabinet as agreed. Demarest testified
that the goods We're now in possession
Of the company at Philadelphia. On
cross-eXamination he testified that the
contract was signed in duplicate and
hat ne prepared both the contracts.
giving the duplicate to Arata. Dema-
est further testified that he crossed
,ut the words in the last line of the
contract under the heading Import
lnt' on both the original and the du-
pllcate. Also crossed out the words
discount off paid in full promptly on
arrival of jeWelry," which occurred in
last and next to the last lines headed
Terms of payment" Agreement was
that the company should pay transport
tation en- jewelry but not on case. He
returned to the office of the company
six weeks after the agreement with
Arata. hut was not present at the Of
flee of the company when the goods
we're shipped. Knew nothing about
whether or not the goods were shipped
Except by receipt.
Attorney Beane requested to be al
lowed to amend the contract which he
held to agree with the duplicate de-
PENDANT had allowed, which request
was granted
John Arata of Hallowell testified
that the contract was made some time
in May. He and Mr.. Demarest We're two
or three days talking the matter over
He identified a contract shown him as
the one which he made. There was a
controversy between the counsel as to
whether the question of the eXpressage
on the cabinet was open to proof. The
court held that it was and exceptions
were taken by the plaintiff. Arata testi
fed that Demarest told him that it
would not cost him one cent to have
the show case delivered at his store
md that the charges would all be pre-
paid. He also admitted letter from
plaintiff offering to reimburse him in
iewelry for the expressage, which he
lad paid on the show case. He testi-
fed that he would have kept the show
case if the concern had paid the eX-
press charges in money.
The case was tried before the first
jury and in giving the case to the jury
Judge Hall instructed them that the
contract of 5000 was in respect to the
iewelrv alone and did not include the
cabinet which was a gift accompany
ing the jewelry. The jury after being
out about 20 minutes returned a YER
ict tor the plaintiff with damage to
the amount of $205.16 Defendants
counsel filed motion for new trial up
on the following exceptions: To that
portion of the charge to the jury
wherein the court ruled that the show
case constituted no part of the consld-
GRAFTON for the execution of the con-
tract: to the refusal of the court to in
struct the jury that the plaintiff had
offered no evidence on which they
could find for him on the count for
goods sold and delivered. or on the
common counts: to allowing the plain
tiff to amend his declaration, claiming
a variance between the declaration and
the written contract proved by the
plaintiff.
After the jury came in both juries
were excused until $50 this forenoon.
The case to be tried this forenoon Is
an appealed case from the Gardiner
police court. that of Keene VS.. the
American Ice Co. which is an action
to recover wages. the amount of which
is in dispute. This case will probably
conclude the civil docket. but the
criminal docket will not come on until
after the grand jury arises. which Will
not be until the last Of the week