Norwich bulletin., 1913-10-01

When the superior court for Wash Ington countay reconVened in the new court house, Tuesday morning the trial of the case of Daniel Tefft against tfe New York New Haven and Hart ford Railroad company, before Judge George T. Brown and a jury was re- s:-med This case is a claim for dam ages to woodland by a fire alleged to have been caused by sparks. from a To- comotive, and was the first case to be tried in the new court house. The plaintiff alleged that about one hun dred acres had been burned over and claimed damages of SC an acre, while the defendant company claimed that the acerage burned over was consid- erably less and the alleged damage was of a much lesser amount. The arguments were completed at 12.30 when court took a recess.
 When court came in for the after noon session, Judge Brown delivered the charge to the jury. After being out for an hour and half the jury re- turned a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding S45 for damages to one lot of fifteen acres at $3 an acre, and $40 for damages to lot of eighty acres.
 Attorney Alonzo Williams was coun- sel for defendant and expressed satis- faction with the verdict. James $. Collins was council for plaintiff
 The next cases called for trial were Alvin E. Champlin against William A Wilcox and William A. Wilcox against Alvin B. Champlin. A jury was em- panelled as follows J. Frank Segar of Westerly foreman; Robert Drys- dale, Charles c. GaVitt, Lewis A. Jos lin of Westerly. Charles E. Macy Frank A. Robinson, Edward P. Tuck CT, Leander W. Tucker, of South Kingston: John MaTlow, Wilbur Haz- ard. of North Kingston: George A
 ,iJ.J,, ,af( R. Champlin, of Exeter.
 Attorney Harry 5. Agard, counsei for Champlin, stated that the two cases related to accounts that were disputed, and covered transactions from July to October, 1912, during which time Wilcox loaned Champlin several sums of money that aggregated $125. Champlin then was in posses sion of farm in CharleStoWn He did not make a success of farming and, after an arrangement with Wilcox de- cided to sell his equity in the farm and his personal effects at public auction, engaging Wilcox as his agent to ar range for the sale, Mir Wilcox to be reimbursed for the loans from the auc- ion sale. The sum of s5t2.75 was realized from the sale and, after all bills were paid Champlin claimed a. balance due him of sTS.97. Mir. Will cox had rendered no account of the
 
 rlin the sum he claims to be due. Hence the suit to recover,
 Herbert w Rsthbun, attorney for Wilcox stated that the cases oTiginat- ed in the district court where ChampIin first brought suit against Wilcox. Mfr. Wilcox claims that Champ1in owes him S21S and Mir, Champlin claims Will COX owes him $7397, and 1t is oues- tion of veracity to certain extent between these ligigants. Wilcox claims that Champlin was in hard financial circumstances and borrowed money at different periods. Subsequently when Champlin decided to sell the farm to ltquidate his debts to Wilcox it was agreed that Wilcox should make the sale apply such part of the proceeds as necessary for the payment of the debts, and turn the balance over to Champlin. Before the auction took place. Champlin negotiated another loan from Wilcox of $110. Wilcox held the auction and became possessed of some of the property. Herbert E. Peabody who formerly owened the farm, subsequently, made declarations that property sold at auction belonged to him and presented a due bill of $175, which Wilcox paid. The balance claimed to be due to Wilcox is $22746 and is the amount sued for.
 The case proceeded with MT. Cham