Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-04
SAGADAHOC COUNTY.

Charles B. Furber, ct al. vs.. Mrs. Levi
c. Wade. Rescript. Whitehouse, j.
The plaintiffs recovered verdict
against the defendant of ss2.28 for fish,
ing tackle. guns, revolvers. ammuni
ton and materials for bicycle repairs
furnished to the defendants minor
sons in the year 1895. The case comes
to the law court on motion to set
aside the verdict as against the law
and the evidence.
1t is not in controversy that the
goods sued for were furnished as
claimed and the plaintiffs contend that
they sold and delivered them on the
credit and responsibility of the de-
PENDENT They further contend that
they were warranted in so doing first,
because as they say, the defendants
father, William Rogers of Bath, with
whom the defendant and'her sons We're
living in the spring and summer of
1893, introduced one Of the boys to
The plaintiffs as his grandson. and act
ing as agent of the defendant, assured
them that "whatever they let the boys
have would be all right" and second
because the defendant herself came
~ lliS olclC anu otdlCu Il1l Whatever
the boys got there "would be paid for,
that she would pay for it."
The defendant denies the authority Of
her father to make the statement to
the plaintiffs attributed to him, denies
that she ever stated to the plaintiffs
that she would pay for the goods
which the boys might obtain at their
store and testifies that on the con-
t:ary, she went to the plaintiffs store
in person before the delivery of the
goods sued for and told them rot to
deliver any more goods to her sons
without written order from her.
There was conflict of testimony re-
.!ating to those issues of fact, but it
was not in controversy that before the
goods sued for were delivered, the de-.
PENDANT had paid one bill for goods
similar to those in question obtained
by the boys after an introduction by
Mr.. Rogers, and it is contended by the
plaintiffs that this bill was contracted
in 1897. The plaintiffs admit that af-
ter the bill sued for had been contract
cd, they received letter from the de-
PENDANT, which was lost after the dis
solution of the firm, requesting them
not to furnish any more goods to the
boys without an order from her, but
deny that any such notice either writ
ten or oral. was ever given to them
before the delivery of the goods in
question. Neither the defendant nor
ther private secretary was able to,
state the year or the season when the
alleged oral notice was given to the
plaintiffs and the plaintiffs insist that
the defendant and her witness made a
mistake in regard to the character of
the notice and the time when it was
given.
1t is not denied that Mr.. Rogers in
troduced his grandson with the state
ment attributed to him, and it is adj
mitted that the bill of goods thereaf-
ter presented was paid by check by
the defendant without objection or
complaint. The testimony of the plain
tiffs that the defendant herself espe-
cially authorized them to furnish goods
70 the boys is not shown to be so i'm
probable and is not so Overborne by
other evidence as to justly the court
in declaring it absolutely incredible.
There was sufficient evidence if belev-
ed, to support the verdict of the jury
, in favor of the plaintiffs, and the court
therefore would not be warranted in
, setting it aside.
Motion overrulcd.