Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-03-06
SUPREME COURT
Case of Caldwell Co. VS.. CushnOc
Paper CO. Opened at Friday
Morning Session of
COurt-Yet Unfin-
ished

the CuShnoc Paper Co, occupied the
attention of the supreme court at Fri
days session and when court was ad-
journed late in the afternoon both at
torneys had made their pleas. Associ-
ate Justice Philbrook will deliver the
charge to the jury at the opening of
court this morning. The attorneys in
the case were W. NJ. Sanborn for the
plaintiff and NJ. S. Holway for the de-
PENDANT.
Court opened at $50 A. NJ. W. NJ.
Sanborn opened the case for the plain
tiff, explaining its nature. He stated
that the action was one of contract in
which the plaintiff, the r. j. Caldwell
Co. corporation existing in New
York, sues the defendant, the Cush-
of a contract, which the plaintiff
claimed the parties entered into in
December, 1911. The r. J. Caldwell Co.
is a commission merchant of New
York and has a representative in
Boston by the name Of E. D. Hewins.
The contract was to the effect that the
r. ]. Caldwell Co. should produce for
the Cushnoc Paper Co. Sc drier felts
to be manufactured by the w. E.
Hooper & Sons Co. of Maryland and
the D. B. Smith & Son Co. of Connec-
ticut. The Cushnoc Paper Co. was to
pay for each felt 60 days after receiv-
ing it. and the r. ]. Caldwell Co. was
to keep on hand one of each Of three
styles of 6rier felts to send to the
Cushnoc Paper Co. at moments no.
tice
According to the claims of the
plaintiff. the r j. Caldwell Co. deliv-
cred the driers but the defendant, the
Cushnoc Paper Co, failed to make the
payment for all of them. The amount
which the plaintiff sued for was
s429.60 and interest amounting to s11.s8.
The Cushnoc Paper Co. admitted the
delivery of the felts by the two man.
ufacturing concerns and further ad-
mitted that it had not paid for all the
felts. The company also admitted
making the contract connected with
the delivery of the felts to the defend
ant. So the case resolved itself into
this issue: Who first committed the
breach Of the contract?
Attorney Sanborn read deposition Of
Charles Dietz OF New Hartford, CT. ship
ping clerk for the D. B. Smith & Sons
Co. which was 20 the effect that the at
ter company had received an order from
the K. j. Caldwell Co. to ship to the
Cushnoc Paper Go. drier felts and that
the felts were shipped as ordered.
Another deposition, that of Harry NJ.
Smith, bockkeeper OF the D. B. Smith &
Sons Co. was read by Attorney San
born. which testified as to when ship
ments were made and when payments
were made.
The case OF the defendant was then
opened by Attorney NJ. 5. Holway. The
defendants claim was that it owed moth
ing to the plaintiff because of the fact
that the plaintiff had failed to keep it's
part of the contract, to keep the felts
on hand and to make the delivery,
which resulted in making it necessary
for the Cushnoc Paper Co. TO shut down
the machine two different time and to
buy felts at other places at higher prices
For this breach OF contract the defend
ant claimed damages to the amount OF
nearly $500.
F. S. Lyman. general manager OF the
Cushnoc Paper Co, took the stand and
identified the contracts made with the
r. ]. Caldwell Co. for the delivery of the
felts and letters relative to the same. He
stated that the transactions were made
through e. D. Hewins, the Boston repre-
sentative of the r. J. Caldwell Co Ac-
cording to his testimony the r. ]. Cald-
we'll Co did not keep its part Of the con-
tract in keeping one of each of the three
styles of drier felts on hand He testi-
fed that the paper machine was obliged
to shut down two different times because
the plaintiff did not deliver felts. and
the Cushnoc Paper Co. was obliged to
buy felts from other companies at a loss
of s17.17 on two felts. He admitted that
the Cushnoc Paper Co had been behind
In its payments, but claimed that RICH:
because the r. ]. Caldwell 60. was not
living up to its part of the agreement.
The attorneys then pleaded to the jury
and at the close of their pleading court
was adjourned until $50 this morning,
when the justice will charge the jury
and the jurors will decide upon the case