Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-12
Argument of Cases.

Owing to a misunderstanding In re-
gard to the time assigned for the
Hancock county cases, law court did
not open until 1890 A. NJ, Wednesday,
and Kennebec county cases We're at
once proceeded with.
The first case to be argued was that
of Grin Golfer Us. Frank +. Best,
personal damage action based upon
negligence. The case was before the
court upon exceptions by the plaintiff
to an order for non-suit. The plaintiff
was young man, q years of age, at
the time of the accident, which oc-
Cured, Nov. 2, 1911. at Augusta. and
the defendant the owner and operator
of a portable wood saving machine.
The case was argued by Benedict f.
Maher for the plaintiff and Thomas
Leigh for the defendant.
The plaintiff sawed two fingers from
his left hand by grasping a moving
shelf or table in attempting TO push
the machine forward. being ordered. it
was claimed by the plaintiff, un-
warned and uniformed by the de-
PENDANT of the danger, to move the
machine, and without the saw being
stopped.
The claim of the defence was that
the plaintiff had the opportunity TO
know and did have the knowledge of
the movement Of the table back and
forth, as he was taking the wood from
the machine, after ii was sawed II
was claimed that the young mans
hand was not on the table when the
accident occurred but that he swung
it carelessly against the saw
The ease of w. G. Means VS.. f. II.
Hoar and trustee was argued by War
rem c. Philbrook for the plaintiff and
+. w. Clair for the defendant In
this action w G. Means of Machiais
claimed 10 recover from f, II. Hoar OF
Fairfield the sum of s112.25, with in
terest from Jan. Is, 1907, to Jan. 1872
which he claimed to have paid out for
the accommodation or use Of Mr.
Hoar. The case was tried at the
January term of the Kennebec county
superior court before Judge Became
and a verdict for the defendant II
came up To the law court on motion
and exceptions by the plaintiff 1t
was claimed by the defendant that the
entry neither party, no further ae
ton for the same cause in two
previous cross actions between the
two parties prevented the plaintiff
from recovering.
The case of Connors in equity VS.
Connors Bros. ct ais, was argued at
the opening of the afternoon session,
coming before the law court upon an
appeal by the defendant from pro
forma ruling for the plaintiff Warren
e. Philbrook of Augusta argued for the
defendant and Tileston f. Woodside Of
Webster for the plaintiff
This bill in equity was brought by
John II. Connors. formerly of Lowell.
Mass, against Connors Bros Co.
Dennis and Edward Connors of Low
ell, Mass, and Margaret V, wife Of
Dennis Connors, alleging misman-
aSement of the affairs of the corpora
ton and the appointment of a receiY-
err. Among specific acts of misman-
agement alleged We're the payment of
$4,000 to Frank Dunbar, Lowell
contractor. to stop the award of the
addition to the Boston courthouse to
New York concern. and the payment
of $22,S00.42 to Olin w. Cutter, an
architect in connection with the spe-
ciiicationS for the Utica, n. Y, court
house, a contract awarded to Connors
Bros. Co. Defendants counsel argued
that the alleged acts of mismanage-
ment did not constitute a fraud upon