Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-04-09
SUPERIOR COURT
Thursdays Session Devoted to
Case of Robinson VS.. Kelley,
Alleged Breach of Con-
tract-Yet Unfinished

Thursdays session of the superior
court was devoted to the case of Leo
b. Robinson Of Schenectady, n. Y. VS.
Edwin Kelley Of Vienna for the al
legged breach of contract and at the
adjournment Of the session at $50
P. NJ. the first witness for the de-
tense had just finished testifying
The case will be resumed at the open
ing of court at $50 this morning.
Sanborn Of Augusta for the plaintiff
and E. E. Richards Of Pennington Cor
the defendant.
Court opened at 10 A. NJ, and the
JurIes were at once empanelled, the
result being as follows:
First jury: Charles H. Davis (fore.
mani, Augusta; Mark B. Addition,
Gardiner; Charles Bushey, Waterville;
F. NJ. Chase, Chelsea; Geo. F. Gowen.
Winslow; Giles c. Hartman, Gard
iner; Everett E. Haskell, China; Otis
E. Hooker. Gardiner; James A. Jones,
Augusta; John w. Kennedy, Vassal-
boro; H. E. Malcolm, Windsor; W. E.
Perkins. Belgrade
Second jury: S. A. Clark (foreman,
Sidney; Chester Bridges, Oakland;
Geo. Brilliard. Waterville: L. Chase,
Monmouth; W. A. Corbin, Randolph,
Jonas P. Hallowell, Augusta; JOSEPH
Laliberte, Augusta: Frank Luce, Vas
salboro: Barton H. Manhire. Hallow-
ell; William R. Packard, Hallowell;
George w. Tucker. Litchfield H. e.
Wilkins, Winthrop
The following jurymen were excused
from further attendance: Charles p.
Chapman. Waterville; Fred n. Esty,
Waterville; Luther Humphrey. An
gusta; Levi T. Merrill, Clinton; c. F.
Walker, Oakland.
The members of the first jury then
were seated and the first case was
commenced.
w. NJ. Sanborn, the attorney for the
plaintiff, in opening the case stated
that the case was an action on con-
tract, in which the plaintiff, Leo. 3.
Robinson Of Schenectady, n. y. claim
ed damages amounting to $500 from the
defendant. Edwin Kelley of Vienna,
on account of the failure Of the de-
fenda1t to live up to contract made
Aug. 20. 1914 between the plaintiff and
Albert r. Jack of Pennington, an
agent for the Strout Farm Agency. in
which agency the farm had been plac-
ed on sale. BY the contract it was
agreed that the defendant sell GER
tain farm in Vienna to the plaintiff
for the sum of $1,000 The plaintiff paid
in $500 then and agreed that on Oct.
p. 1914 he would pay down 500 and
pay the balance (S400) by a mortgage
on the farm. According TO the con-
tract should either party fail to live
up to his part of the contract on Oct.
% he was tc forfeit 200. Nj Robinson
searched diligently but could not find
all the boundaries Of the farm. The
parties met Oct. ~ in the office of E.
+. Richards at Pennington but as
they could not meet each others terms
the sale was not contaminated. And
since that time Mr. Robinson has
never received back the 5000 that he
paid IN towards the farm. The con-
tention Of the plaintiff is that the de-
PENDANT did not offer to the plaintiff
proper deed, a proper deed being a
plaintiff had rot contracted for a
warranty deed, the kind of a deed
that the defendant offered to give him.
Mr.. Sanborn stated that the two points
We're: /. Did the defendant on that
occasion offer to convey the property
by proper decd" >. Had the plain
TIT seen enough to warrant him IN
refusing to accept the deed that the
defendant had to Offer
Mr.. Robinson, the plaintiff took the
stand at the opening of court in the
afternoon and testified that he is ein-
Tioyed with the General Electric O..
and that he came into Maine for the
purpose Of buying farm. where ne
could raise fruit. He spoke of his
meeting Mr.. Jack. the agent OF the
Strout Farm Agency, and of their
visit to Mr.. KCllcy's farm. Although
Mr.. Kelley was not at home Mr. Jack
attempted to show Mr.. Robinson
where the boundaries of the farm
property We're. Upon visit later -
the farm. Mr. Kelley was still away
but relative of Mr.. Kelley volun-
teered to show Mr.. Robinson the boun
daries of the farm and did so to the
best of his ability. After Mr.. Rob
inson returned to his home he wrote
Mr.. Jack for an abstract of the deed
and Mr. Jack wrote back that he had
written Mr.. Kelley for the abstra ct
but was not sure that Mr. Kelley would
send it. Mr.. Robinson then wrote Mr.
Kelley for the abstract and Mr.. KEEL
ley wrote that he would send a de-
scription of the place from the regis
try of deeds. and this he did. But he
sent no abstract of the deed. On Oct.
IS Mr.. Robinson came to Maine again
and Mr.. Kelley attempted to show him
the boundaries Of the property but
was unable to do so. Mr. Robinson
then spoke of the agreement, which
was the same as Attorney Sanborn
had stated it. He also said that at
the time of the meeting Oct %, KEEL :
ley refused to have a survey made Of
the property and offered to give only
a warranty deed and the deal was
not consumated. Mr.. Robinson nat
urally desired the 5000 back which he
had already invested and Mr.. Jack
stated that he was only the agent for
Mr.. Kelley. Mr.. Robinson later wrot e
Mr.. Kelley for the money and received
the reply in Mrs. Kelley's writing that
they had never received the 5000 and
Mr.. Robinson would have to look to
Mr.. Jack for it.
Mr.. Robinson stated that when he