Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-06-21
WATERv|LLE.
SUPERIOR COURT.
June Term, Judge Oliver G. Hall,
Presiding.

The first case in order for trial thsi
morning was No. 1863. Vinal S. Odlin
ct al. vs. E. D. Linscott. John E. Nell
son for plaintiffs; E. NJ Thompson for
defendant. This action is brought to
recover a commission for the sale of
real estate. The plaintiffs allege that
defendant entered into a written con-
tract for the sale of his farm, situated
in Fairfield. The commission sued for
is 500. One clause of the contract pro-
vided that if the contract was rescind-
ed the defendant should pay fee of
not less than 500. The plaintiff testi-
fed that they advertised the farm in
their catalogue, also in the Sentinel;
that they talked the farm up to a Mr..
Fuller. resident of Fairfield; that az
ter the farm had been in their hands
for sale some time Mr.. Linscott, the
defendant, came into. their office! and
informed their Office girl that he had
sold his farm to party with whom
they had had no talk about the farm,
paid his withdrawal fee of $40 and was
given release of the contract. Some
time later on it came to the attention
of the plaintiffs that the farm had been
sold to Mr.. Fuller. the man to whom
they claimed to have recommended it.
Upon this they gave the defendant
credit for the 500 and notified him Of
their demand for full commission.
After the plaintiffs case was all in
the defendants counsel moved for a
non-suit on the ground that the plain
tiff, according to the evidence, had re-
ceived $40 as agreed in the contract, In
case the contract was released and the
property withdrawn from sale: and
that suit could not be maintained. mas
much as the money received had not
been refunded.
The next case in order for trial was
No. ATS. E. N. Grant VS.. Archie d.
Parker. Mr.. Sanhorn for plaintiff; J..
H. Haley for defendant.
This action is brought to recover the
sum of $50 which the plaintiff claims
to have loaned the defendant, less 81
which he acknowledges was due for
expenses from st. Adams to Lancaster.
PENDANT to come up and drive the ho-
tel at Lancaster and sent for the de-
fnedant to come up and drive the ho-
tel hack for, him. The defendant went
to Lancaster, but Mr.. Grant had de-
cided to return to Maine. as he was
afraid lie would be sick. He stated that
he was asked to loan the defendant
$50 The defendant had previously
worked for him. and he had known him
many years; he did not take security
for the loan, and had not been repaid.
according to plaintiffs statement on
the stand. The plaintiffs testimony
was corroborated by his wife. who
heard the conversation about the loan.
The defendant testified that he went
to Lancaster to work for plaintiff. and
was promised a years job: that he
waited at the home Of his brother for
q month for this job before he was fl
nally notified to come: that he lost an
other job by reason of his going to
Lancaster; that when he got there he
found the plaintiff ready to return to
Maine. He testified that he told the
plaintiff it was pretty tough" on him,
as he had lost other jobs, etc, and that
it was finally agreed between them that
the plaintiff should pay him $50 to re-
imburse him. His testimony was sup
ported by that of his brother. Samuel
Parker. who stated that he was pres
ent when the money was paid over. and
that nothing was said about loan.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum OF
$25.65.
Tuesdays trial list Is as follows:
1874. Leydecker VS.. Tyler. Hussey:
Nelson.
2s2 Brown vs.. M. c. r. r. Weeks;
Johnson.
2s3. Same VS. Same. Weeks; JOHN
406. Waller VS.. Briggs Brown; Leigh.