Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-04-08
SUPERIOR COURT
NOn-Suit Ordered in ''H0ss" Case
of Carver VS.. Smith
Criminal Docket Will
Be Called Today

was devoted Friday to a horse case, an
action brought by J. P. Carver of Wayne
against Bertrand H. Smith Of Wayne.
In this action the plaintiff sought dam
ages in the sum Of $125 for money that
he claimed he paid to the defendant for
horse, which according to the claim
Of the plaintiff the defendant did not
own and had no authority to sell. Ellis
worth E. Peacock Of Readfleld appeared
as attorney for the plaintiff and Leroy
T. Carleton Of Winthrop for the defend
ant.
After the testimony in the case was
closed and the attorneys had made their
arguments a non-suit was ordered in
the case.
The case hinged on the question as
to whether Mr.. Smith did or did not
act as agent for the plaintiff in buying
the horse, which was red roam geld
ing weighing about 100 pounds.
According to the claim of the plain
tiff as stated by Attorney Peacock Mr..
Carver, who is a farmer, desired a
horse in 1913. One day Mr.. Smith, a
dealer in horses, came to the plaintiff s
house driving a red roam gelding and
Mr.. Carver bought the horse, giving his
note for 1925 for six months. Mr.. Car
yer kept the horse from February until
October, when he sold it to George NJ.
Smell of Fairfield, believing that he had
perfect right to sell the horse. Mr..
Carver received communication from
Mr. Smell saying that the horse had
been taken by the firm of Baker &
Priest Of Scion under a mortgage. Mr..
Tor
self that Mr.. SHELLS statement was
true. He notified Mr.. Smith. Finally
suit was brought against Mr.. Carver.
Mr.. Carver was unable to get from Mr.
Smith money paid for the horse.
Three witnesses were sworn in for
the plaintiff.
Mr.. Carver. the plaintiff, testified that
about March, 1913, he bought a horse
from Mr.. Smith and later sold it. He
paid Mr.. Smith 1925 for the horse.
which Mr. Smith said he had bought Of
Mr.. .Trask. The plaintiff kept the horse
until September or October, when he
sold it to Mr.. Smell Of Fairfield He
testified that he had shown Mr.. Smith
the letter, which he received from Mr.
Smell Of Fairfield and he identified the
letter on the witness stand. Mr.. Smith
talked the same each time the plaintiff
went to see him. And later when the
plaintiff was sued he Immediately noti-
fed Mr.. Smith.
Upon cross-examination by Attorney
Carleton witness testified that Mr..
Smith was not buying the horse for him
and that he had no understanding with
Mr.. Smith about buying the horse for
him. Mr.. Smith had not told him what
he had paid for the horse. But the
plaintiff admitted that he had told Mr..
Smith that he wanted to buy a horse.
George Smell of Fairfield testified
that he had bought the horse from Mr..
Carver and later Mr.. Priest of the firm
of Baker & Priest of Scion came and
took the horse from him. He had cor
1espondence with Mr.. Carver about the
horse and finally he brought suit
against HIM.
Perley f. Priest of Scion testified
Baker & Priest. In February, 1915, he
took a red roam horse away from Mr..
Smell and he identified the chattel
mortgage and he testified that he had
a bill of sale on the red roam horse and
he took the horse on a mortgage.
Mr.. Carver upon cross examination
by Attorney Carleton testified that he
paid Mr.. Smith for the horse a bank
Iote to run six months anl that he paid
all the note at once and it was not re-
neWed.
The defense as sts ted by Attorney
Carleton rested Upon the claim that in
!
Smith, was acting as agent for the
plaintiff and had no other interest in
the horse. Mr.. Carver did not have the
ready money and asked Mr.. Smith to
look him up a horse and take his note.
Mr. Smith knew that Mr.. Trask had a
horse to sell and he sent word to Mr..
Trask that he knew where he could
dispose Of the horse. Messrs. Smith
and Trask drove up to Mr.. Carver's
house. Mr.. Carver examined the horse
and he thought that Mr.. Smith could
make better deal than he could. Mr.,
Smith paid SIP for the horse and was
to take Mr.. Carver's note for 1925 for
it. He drove the horse home in order
t. get his money and the next day he
took the horse back to Mr.. Carver's
and got the note. Anc later when Mr..
Carver came to him about the horse
and paying up Mr.. Smith simply said
that it would have to be paid.
Mr.. Smith, the defendant, was the
only witness for the defense. He testi-
fed that Mr.. Carver had told him that
he wanted a good all-around horse,
costing about 500 or s125. and sale
that he did not have the ready money
to pay. And ne askel the defendant if
lie saw any such horse to buy it. Later
Mr.. Carver examined the horse Of Mr..
%rask and Mr.. Smith bought the horse,
l'ayirg cash and afterwards taking Mr..
Carver's note for s125 for six months.
And he testified that $50 was paid on
the note at maturity and SIS was given
on six months more.
Upon cross examination the defend
ant testified that !.e did not tell the
plaintiff he wanted to settle the mat
ter up but after the plaintiff brought
suit the defendant suggested that /.
would be cheaper for both to settle
rather than to go to court. At the end
Of the cross -exa minatIon the testimony
in the case was closed.
Today's Cases
After the calling of the criminal