Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-03-14
Jury Disagrees in Case Of
Parsons VS.. L. A. &W.
Suit Of D, H. Darling Of Gard
liner VS.. F. 7. Bradstreei Is
Gommeneed-.Piainiiff on Stand for
The Entire Day

The jury in the case of thaniel
Parsons of Waterville VS.. the L., A.
g. W. ST Rya in which the plaintiff
is seeking to recover damages as the
result of injuries received by being
thrown from one of the defendant
company's cars on Nov. 8 last, report
ed Friday morning at the opening of
/ court that they had been unable to
gree upon verdict after celebrating
from AS P. NJ. Thursday until mid
night.
The next case for trial was that of
D. II. Darling of Gardiner, former
treasurer of the Bradstreet Lumber
Co, vs.. F. T. Bradstreet of Gardiner,
a stakeholder in the company, for an
alleged breach of contract. The plain
tiff brings suit against the defendant,
Bradstreet. claiming that he was not
paid his share of the bonds as was
promised him, also that he was to re-
ceive $1,000 per annum for his services
as treasurer, which he did not receive.
The case is q complicated one in which
considerable amount of money is in
volved. George W. Heselton of Gar
diner is representing the plaintiff in
the case while \. X. Butler of Show
hogan is conducting the case for the
defendant.
Attorney Heselton opened the case
clearly before the jury and introduced
as the first witness D. H. Darling, the
plaintiff in .tffe case. Witness was on
the stand for the entire forenoon and
also a greater part of the afternoon
session. Witness testified that he was
treasurer of the company from June
/ I, 1905. to April Is, 1910. The sal
airy of treasurer, general manager and
president was $1,000 a year. declared
the witness. and the salary that the
clerk received was $500. + T. Brad
street became president of the com
pany, according to witness, after he
was ousted from the office of treas
urer and that he, Bradstreet, receiv-
ed $500 per annum in addition to the
clerks salary. Witness was asked by
counsel for plai ntiff what We're the du-
ties of J. S. Bradstreet, the president
of the company. prior TO +. T. Brad
streets taking up the duties of that
Office as compared with the duties per-
formed by the latter, when Attorney
Butler for the defence objected, de-
claring that the work performed by
j -.
dent of the company was not the reg
ular duties of the president of the
company. It was claimed by the wit
ness that later the salaries of the Of
fees of the company which had been
materially increased were reduced to
500 month. Attorney Butler asked
that the question be read by the re-
porter and the answer to ascertain
whether witness said reduced by 500
a month or to 500 month. The rec
ords were read and showed that wit
ness had stated ito 500 a month"
The difference is in the proposition, is
it not ~ inquired Attorney Heselton of
MIR. Butler. There is a difference in
subtraction also, according TO my way
of reckoning" replied the defendants
attorney. Witness was asked when his
salary of $1,000 ceased and he replied
that the last settlement was on Nov.
/, 1913. Witness was then told verbal
ly by W. F. Henderson that his SAL
airy would stop on that date and was
later informed in writing by F. T.
Bradstreet of the same fact. Witness
then testified that he made a demand
of the latter for "A continuance in his
salary as at the time he, the witness.
entered the employ of the company
Bradstreet had agreed to give him l2
of 1-3 of the shares that he, Brad
street, owned, for $4,000, paid after the
profit and loss had been divided.
Mr.. Butler then began the cross ex-
animation of the witness. When wit
ness entered the employ of the COM
pany he was not familiar with book
Lp h1tt Nva in pH N II
line by w. F. Henderson. After as
Stunning the duties as treasurer witness
went to the home of Mr. Bradstreet
and received instructions to go up into
the woods in different parts of North
ern Maine to get q general knowledge
of the numbering operations. Accord
ing to witness he was in the woods on
three occasions during the time he
was treasurer of the company. 1t was
brought out in cross examination that
in 1910 the defendant, Bradstreet. ask
ed the plaintiff how much longer he
was going to continue to overdraw his
salary, and that the answer that the
defendant received at that time ac
cording to witness, was that he, the
defendant, owed him $4,000. $50 that
when Mr.. Bradstreet asked you how
much longer you We're going to con-
tinue the overdraft, which already
amounted to $500, you replied that he
owed you s20,000?"
Il did"
THAT $700 was money belonging to
the company, was it not?'
1t was
Has it ever been paid back?n
"All but about $780," replied the wit