Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-04-13
SUPERIOR court
Verdict for Defendant in House
vs.. House 'H0ss" Case
Verrill VS.. Thompson Case
Opens-Criminal Dock
ct This Morning

Winthrop, in which the jury returned
a verdict in favor Of the defendant,
and the opening Of the Verrill VS..
Thompson case. In this case Carl l..
verrill of Wayne brings action against
Thomas c. Thompson Of Wayne for
alleged assault and battery July 4,
1914. The attorneys in the case are
Williamson, Burleigh & Mclean for
the plaintiff and Ellsworth e. Peacock
| Of Readfield for the defendant.
| At the opening Of the court Monday
morning the jury which had been in de-
liberation on the Robinson VS.. Kelley
Tease reported a disagreement and later
| these jurors were excused until the
afternoon session.
The case Of House VS.. House was then
resumed, Mrs. Catherine House, the de-
| PENDANT, being the first witness upon the
stand. She testified upon cross-examin-
alton by Attorney E. E. Peacock that
she did not like it one day when she
| saw Mr.. and Mrs Sumner House driving
the horse because the horse was very
sweaty. Upon direct examination she
stated that she told her daughter that
day that she never saw the horse look
as Uf1u DIS IL Olu tildL udSs A1iC oAoo vs.
titled that after the death of her hus-
| band she never talked with Mr.. Downes
of Winthrop or Hosea House about the
horse, prince"
Horatio Maxim of Wayne then took
| the stand and testified that Sumner
House drove the horse one day to his
house and told him that the old horse
was lame. Mr.. House, the plaintiff.
worked the horse that summer moving
and hauling hay and dressing. Upon
cross-examnation he stated that the
horse did the work well and that he had
not noticed that the horse was going
lame.
John Raymond of Wayne testified that
he did not know the market value Of the
horse when it was killed, but that he
had offered SO for the horse after the
death of Augustus House.
The plaintiff, Summer House, was then
called to the stand for a rebuttal Of
certain conversation that had been tes-
titled to. He stated that he had no con-
versation with Mr. Mclaughlin Of Win
throp concerning the horse in the con-
troversy and that he had not told Mr..
HAYNES that Mrs. House had let him
Hosea House. an uncle of Sumner
House, testified that Mrs. House. the
defendant. had told him that she had
given the horse to Sumner House.
Mrs. Sumner House stated that the
conversation which her husband had
with Mr.. Mclaughlin at the time re-
ferred to was not concerning the horse,
prince but was concerning a horse
which Mr.. Mclaughlin wanted to sell.
She stated that Mrs. Catherine House.
the defendant, had told Hosea House
that she had given the horse to Sumner
House because she thought he had used
her like a brother.
William r. Downes of Winthrop stat
ed that Mrs. Catherine House had told
him that Sumner House was going to
have the horse as long as the horse was
good for anything and then he was
going to kill it,
Attorney Peacock. counsel for the
plaintiff. then read testimony offered at
the last House VS.. House trial in view of
showing that it contradcted testimony
offered during the present trial.
AS rebuttal for the defendant Mrs.
Horatio Maxim took the stand and ties.
titled that Mr.. Downes had talked with
her about the horse. advising that the
defendant sell prince"
Sumner House. the plaintiff, stated
that his first demand upon the defend
ant was this suit
At that point the Jury was excused
| until =. NJ.
Attorney Carleton made his plea 20
the jury at the opening of the after
/ ~11s~
the law and testimony there was no
gift, for the law requires that de-
mand be made by the plaintiff and
the testimony showed that none was
made. And he left it for the jury to
determine if the defendant would not
sell the horse, would she be likely
to give it away.
In the plea Of Attorney Peacock for
the plaintiff, the counsel stated that
the plaintiff had his right to the horse
by a contract rather than gift, the
contract having been made between
the plaintiff and the defendant after
the death Of the defendants husband.
Judge Beane then charged the jury
and it retired at 4.O5 P. NJ. to decide
upon the case, returning at $40 with
the verdict.
VerriII VS.: Thompson Case
The case of Verrill VS.. Thompson
was then opened and at the close OF
the afternoon session two witnesses
for the plaintiff and three witnesses
for the defendant had given testi-
mony. :,
Attorney Ernest L. Mclean stated
the nature of the case, showing it to
be an action to recover damages for
assault and battery brought by Carl
L. Verrill Of Wayne against Thomas
C. Thompson of Wayne, the alleged
assault having been made on July 4,
1914.
Mr.. verr;ll, the plaintiff. took the
stand and testified that after II o'clock
on the morning Of the Fourth while he
and some Of the other older boys were
celebrating, Mr.. Thompson struck one
Of the boys near him and then struck
the plaintiff, breaking the bridgework
of three teeth and cutting the inside
Of his mouth. He then described the
process which must be gone through to
replace the bridgework. The plaintiff
claimed that he put in three days with
the dentist and paid the dentist SIG Tor
..,a,Y- To octirn al bic 1neS NJ time