Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1912-10-15

F0nQere0n OF Lim6rlck.
Prayer was offered by Rev. R. j
Bruce of Norway, and after the usua
proclamstions tho grand jury was EN-
paneled a. follows:
J. e. Stuart. Hiram, Foreman.
Charles r. Berry, Buckfeld.
Walter B. Berry, Rumford.
Victor A. Binford, Mexico.
Granville 8. Cotton. Brown1eld.
Bert F. Cummings. Paris.
Fred DeShon, Woodstock.
Charles r. Harrington, Bethel.
Arthur G. Gilman, Porter.
Edwin 4. Hollis. Canton.
Harry u. jackson, Norway.
Geo. I. Kimball. Waterford.
Merle Perkins, Oxford.
F. E. Scribner, Albany.
K. W. Spaulding, Sumner.
George A. Trumbull, Denmark.
George W. Weston, Fryeburg.
Judge Savage gave the grand jury a
short but comprehensive charge regard
ing their duties, and they retired to theil
room.
The rest of the forenoon was taken uI
With the call of the docket and the max.
Ing nd Of the trial list. A short trial
list was the OUTCOME, and 1t was appar.
emit that the civil t6siness would last
only few days.
At the afternoon session the thirty
traverse jurors who had been summoned
all answered to their names, but out OF
the thirty nine wished to be excused
from serving, for various reasons. Judge
Savage considered the several cases, and
finally excused five of the nine, W. 81.
ConaDt Of Buckfield, Samuel o. Dudley
of Oxford, Virgil d. johnson Of Frye.
burg, John F. Noyes Of Greenwood, and
Frank c. Palmer Of Porter. The juries
were then empaneled as follows:
FIRST JURY.
K. C. Mills. Mason, Foreman.
George w. Berry, Paris.
J. walter Buchanan, Lincoln Plantation.
Herbert 8. Emerson. Stow.
r. L. Glines, Rumford.
Clarence A. Han, Andover.
Frank D. Holden, Sweden.
BeSiamin W. KimSaii, Bethel.
Ole e. Payne. Dix6eld.
Jacob Stanley, Hiram.
w. II. T. Waterhouse, Rumford.
SECOND JURY.
Asa d. Frost, Norway. Foreman.
Arthur L. Childs. Peru.
George e. Childs, Canton.
B. j. Collins. Mexico.
C. W. Cummings, Hebron.
John A. Fox. Lowell.
Albert W. Judkins, Upton.
Ezra Keene, Hartford.
Charles n. kimbsll Paris.
H. Arthur Robbins, Norway.
Ned !. Swan, Woodstock.
William II. Wakefield, Brownheli.
SUPPLEMENTARY.
John N. Philbrook, Bethel.
Soon after the organization Of the
juries was completed, work began on the
case of the Whitman & Pratt Rendering
Co. of Lowell, Mass, against L. n. Mann
& Son Of West Paris. Walter L. Gray
for plaintiff, James s. Wright for de.
fence. The suit was brought for several
tons OF fertilizer shipped by the plaintiff
company to the Manns at Bryant's Pond
in 1911, which was used on their farms
in Woodstock for 9 number Of acres Of
corn, potatoes and beans. Defendants
admit receiving and using the fertilizer,
but claim damages on account Of the
failure to deliver ssasonably. The oorre-
spondence and testimony introduced
showed that the Whitman & Pratt Co.
on May 8, 1911, acknowledged the receipt
Of the order, for immediate shipment
that the goods were actually loaded into
the car at the company's siding at North
Chelmsford, Mass, ON the 18th of May,
and moved the following day; and that
they arrived at Bryant's Pond June 1st,
considerably later than 1t was intended
to plant the crops. In consequence of
this delay, 1t is asserted by the defend
ants, the seed potatoes which had been
cut for planting were spoiled so that the
crop was largely failure, and . large
part of the beans failed to ripen before
they were cut of by the frost In Septem.
Der.
The case was given to the jury just
before court suspended Tuesday night,
and In the morning they returned YER
dict Of $100.14 for tho plaintiff. The
bill of the fertilizer, on which tho suit
was brought, amounted to $218.25.
Immediately afterward trial began OF
the suit, Norway National Bank vs.. Mer-
rili w. Bracket. Walter L. Gray for
the bank, j. N. Libby with James S.
Wright assisting for Bracket. Mr..
Bracket IL . resident Of Oxford, farm.
or and truckmap. This suit was
brought on . promissory note, dated
Jan. 10, 1905, for $500, bearing the names
of E. R. Bennett and N. W. Bracket at
the bottom. Mr.. Bracket denies ever
having signed the note, and the question
at issue was whether the signature was
genuine or forged.
It appeared from the testimony OF Mr..
Smith, the cashier OF the bank, that Mr..
Bennett (who, by the way, was near
neishbor Of Mr.. Brackett) was the man
who got the money on the note, and be
had paid the interest and made some
small payments on the note. The only
relations between the bank and Mr..
Bracket had been that some letters had
been written and mailed to Mr.. Bracket
calling attention to the note and request
ing payment Of It, to which no reply had
ever been received. Copies Of three Of
these letters, from tho banks files, were
introduced, and Il was stated that others
had been mailed of which no copy was
kept. Some town orders Of the town Of
Oxford, drawn to Mr.. Bracket and en-.
dorsed by him, were put In by the plain
tiff - standards Of signature, and Mr..
Smith, asked regarding the genuineness
of tho Bracket signature on the note,
replied that 10 his opinion tho names
we're written by tho same hand.
In defence Mr.. Bracket denied ever
signing the note, and stated that he
knew nothing of such note until bis ut.
teution was called to It after tho death
OF Mr.. Bennett on Jan. /, 1911, when be
Immediately denied the signature. BE
said that he had not signed note In .,
least twenty years. Testimony was also
introduced to tho effect that for years
Mr.. Bennett had been In the habit Of
bringing the mail from tho post Office
for Mr.. Braokett's family, doing 1t
large part OF the time. Finally, William
Z. Neal. Portland attorney, who said
he had been testifying ~ handwriting
expert for over forty years, testified thai
In his opinion the name Of n. W. Brack
cit on tho note WAS not written by the
same hand - tho standards introduced
| In tho case and admitted 10 have beer
written by Mr.. Bracket, and that be 70
garded the name on the note a. in {
simulated hand.
The jury returned verdict for the do
PENDANT.
Next were tried two cases, In which
Arthur A. Bishop Of Boston was tb'
plaintiff, the defendants In ono case be
Ing Gardner q. Cobb and his son. E. L
Cobb, doing business under the firm
name of e. L. Cobb q Co., atRumford
and 10 the other DR.. A. L. Stanwo0d o
Rumford. A the two cases were simi
lar, they were tried together. Gray TO
, the plaintiff; N. G.. Foster for E. L. Cob