The independent-reporter., 1909-09-30
sAs1s nTFaRf - J. torRT



werk. ns worked g dAys and his
ball amounted to skl. Not fscslxihg
hls snm hs placed a llen on the land
and haiiainKs owned By Mr. Merrill
10 seeare himself for hls ~sg~s
From tho testimony submitted II
appeared that various sums of mon.
- had been advanced to Aexsra
CLARK a sawyer ~ Mr. Merrill
amounting ia all 10 some sioe or
teeo Then the men employed by
them. struck. somewhere abon; the
9TH of september. upon this they
threw up their contract. turned
over 10 Mr Merrill their yard with ali
the stone. both finished and unnn-
ished
The point At Law ls upon what
should Mr.. Munroe have placed hi,
lien. rpon the building. upon which
be did not work. or on the granite. on
which he did work. This Will be
decided by the law court
MIR. Merrill testified that OF the
finished granite delivered to him by
Messrs Clark and Sawyer not sin
gle piece would fit. That IL all had
to be cut over and that some OF the
pieces called for by the specifications
OF the architect were never delivered.
Tuesday afternoon the attention of
the court was occupied with the case
OF Corson vs. Gould. Forrest Good
win for the plaintiff; c. o. Small for
the defendant.
Mr.. Gould is an agent for the So
ciety for the prevention of cruelty
to animals. Having received COM
plants concerning a horse owned by
the plaintiff David NJ. Corson, he
took the animal on Nov 10, 1908, and
the next day had the animal killed.
The plaintiff claims that the horse
was in good condition, that when
Agent Gould came to take the horse
he (Gould) assaulted him, and he
brings this suit to recover the value
of the animal and damages for the
injuries which he sustained as a re-
suit of the alleged assault
The defense was general denial
of all these allegations The de-
fendant denies choking or striking
the plaintiff and states that he only
used what force was absolutely neces-
sary to take the horse from the barn,
claiming that Mr.. Corson interfered
with him in discharge of his duty
as an officer of the law. Witnesses
were also put on the stand who testi-
horse.
After a deliberation of three hours
the jury at 5.45 Wednesday after
noon returned a verdict for the plain
tiff In the case of Corson vs.. Gould.
In his charge to the jury Judge
Bird stated there were three ques-
tions for that body to consider. First
what was the fair value Of the horse
when he was taken by Agent Gould?
Second, the assault and battery as
pect of the case. Did the defendant
use more force than was necessary
when he took the horse? Third. az
to the damage the plaintiff suffered
II the defendant was guilty of an
assault.
The jury returned verdict of 500.
They decided that the horse was
worth $40 They found that Gould
was guilty Of an assault and they
assessed the damages at $50. The
case will go to the law court.
AS soon as the jury retired No. 218
on the continued civil docket was
taken up. This was Simmons C
Hammond Mfg. Co. vs. Delano G. Tr.
Gould & Lawrence for plaintiff; For
rest Goodwin for defendant.
The action was to recover the sum
Of $181.46 which the plaintiff alleges
was due by the defendant for the
sale Of two root beet outfits and
some root beer syrup. The defense
waa that tho said root beer outfits
did not work we'll and that they were
bought under guarantee. The case
was still on trial when court ad-
journed last night.
There Is but one more civil case
on the assigned list, that of Foss vs.
Cooley, and it Is probable that the
criminal docket will be reached Fri
day morning.