Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-04-11
SUPERIOR court
The Case Of RObiChaud vs..
Proctor & Bowie Co.
Is Decided for the Plaintiff
THE Trespass Case
Of Hatch VS.. Thomas Is Started.
Plaintiff on Stand

The case of George Robichand of
Augusta VS.. The Proctor & Bowie Co.
of Winslow, in which the plaintiff sues
the defendant company for the sum or
$500, was opened at Fridays session
of the superior court. Williamson,
Burleigh & Mclean represented the
plaintiff and Carroll n. Perkins OF
Waterville the defendant. The nature
of the case, according to Attorney
WiIliamsons opening was that Robie-
chand was to take charge of the COM
panys brick yard in Winslow and su-
perintend the burning of the brick in
the kilns. Plaintiff was to receive
$50 per thousand for the burning and
moulding the brick. On account OF
the fact that the bricks were not sat-
isfactorily burned the company refus-
ed to settle the amount of the claim.
The plaintiff, Robiechand, took the
stand and testified that he was to take
charge of the burning and moulding
of the brick at the risk of the com
pany and was to receive $3.50 per
thousand. Witness would hire his own
burners and pay them himself, and he
was to get his pay after settlement
on each of the kilns. One kiln OF
bricks was not properly burned, ow-
ing to the fact that the fires had been
allowed to get low and the heat had
not been held at the same temperature.
Proctor & Bowie Co. was to furnish
all material and tools for the work
with the exception that witness was
| to pay for half of the dynamite.
Horace Purinton of Waterville. a
o
| fed as to estimating the number OF
bricks in the kilns. The case was of
not long duration and hinged materi-
| ally on the question as to whether
| there was a disagreement in the con-
tract made between the parties.
| Attorney Perkins opened briefly for
the defence and introduced as the
first witness Harry Hilton, superin-
tendent of the company. Witness tes-
titled as to making a copy Of the con-
| tract made between the parties and
that the PLAINTIFF asked for no change
in the contract with the exception that
the company was to pay for half OF
the dynamite and the mittens. Wit
ness was present when the contract
was made and heard the conversation
Vice president OF the company, Sam
uel Clark, testified as to making the
contract with the plaintiff and that
there was nothing said whatever about
the company taking the risk as tc
whether the brick were properly burn
ed or not. The company made the
contract with the plaintiff for satisfac-
tory work.
Mr.. Proctor, president of the COM
pany, testified as to going down to the
brick yard at the request of Mrs
Clark, as there had been poor burr
in one of the kilns. Witness had
some talk with Robieehand in regard
to the burn. and asked him (Robie-
chand) the cause of the results. Plain
tiff stated in reply that he could moi
account for the poor burn. Witness
told him that he did not care so much
for the loss of the brick but he die
object to the loss of the fuel which
the company was furnishing. Witness
never agreed to take the responsible
ity of the burning Of the brick.
The defence closed its testimony anc
Attorney Perkins argued before the
jury. In his argument he wen- ovei
the case, briefly reiterating on the i'm
portant points. Mr.. Williamson made
brief summing up Of the case and
Judge Beane delivered his charge.
verdict for the plaintiff in the sum Of
$s35.S5 was returned after two hours
elaboration.
The next case for trial was that o.
e. Judson Hatch of Augusta VS.. Franz
B. Thomas of Augusta, in which th'
former brings suit for an alleged tres
pass. Williamson. Burleigh & Nc
Lean conducted the case for the plain
tiff and Judge Benedict F. Maher fol
the defendant. as3EH4
It was made known by Mr.. william