Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-06-16
SUPERIOR COURT.
Kennebec SIS, June Term, 1911-Fred
Emery Reane, Justice Presiding.


No 592. Nettie " Brann VS.. W. j.
Baker c. W. Hussey. ESD, for plain
tiff. Williamson, Burleigh * Mclean
for defendant. Both parties reside in
Albion.
This was an action To recover bal
ance claimed To be due ON a lot of hay.
The plaintiff testified that defendant
purchased of her a certain lot of hay
IN her barn for $50, $50 had been re-
ceived in payment, but the balance
had been received in payment, but the
balance had never been paid. Plain
tff's husband and other witnesses tes-
tilted in her behalf.
Defendant testified that he hauled
away about three tons OF the hay, and
then received Il letter from plaintiff
that he understood forbade him TAX
ing more hay. Later on he stated
that he saw the husband and agreed
TO take the balance of the hay, but
that before he hauled the hay this suit
was brought and the balance of the
hay was not hauled
Verdict for plaintiff, $1,000.
The next case in order for trial was
No. 254. w. J. Karnes of New York
vs.. II. f. Chute OF Sidney. William
son, Burleigh & Mclean for plaintiff
and H. ID. Eaton. Esq, for defendant.
This is a suit upon a promissory note
FOR $3.50. The defendant filed an ac-
count in Offset showing balance due
him, outside of the note sued for, of
$405.31. Upon the opening of the case
MIR Eaton. By leave Of court, with
nil aF he a M
filed an admission of liability accord
ing to the declaration OF plaintiff Tn
der ruling of the court defendants at
torney was allowed to open and close
the case.
There We're no witnesses in the case
except the parties. but large
amount of documentary evidence was
offered. The defendant testified that
in the fan OF 1903 he made arrange
lnents with the plaintiff to sell the
goods of the Porter Screen Company
on commission basis, he to receive
l2la per cent. commission when
screens We're sold at list prices and
q higher rate when sold above list
prices although certain expenses
were to be deducted from this COM
mission He continued to werk for
several months and drew about $50
per week for expenses. In March lie
borrowed of the plaintiff the $3.50 in
question, giving his note and collater-
q security for some. At the end of
the work IN June. 1909, defendant
figured that he had earned conmis-
sions amounting to S1i25S1 and had
received payments Z on account
| amounting to S720. leaving a balance
due him OF S405 ST. He stated that
plaintin suggested that they should
sell at a lower price. and he have
less commission, but that he never
agreed To it.
Plaintiff testified that the contract
with defendant was entered into as
was stated by him, but that by a
later agreement. not in the contract,
it was agreed to sell goods below the
list prices as they were not getting
as much business as they felt they
ought to get. Plaintiff stated that he
| understood the later agreement was
agreeable to Mr. Chute and that it
should apply TO the whole sea son s
work. rot only the future business.
bat the orders already taken. and I'M
der that understanding he figured
that Mr.. Chute had earned $77S.05.
instead of Sll25.3i, as claimed by de-
PENDANT Defendant denied that he
ever agreed to accept anything less
than the commission specified in the
contract. The plaintiff also had a
charge of $i27 against the defendant,
for mis-lits, which defendant stated
he should pay.
The testimony was all in and argu-
| ments concluded upon Adjournment at
little after o'clock.