Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-01-15
SUP ERROR COURT
Readfield Case of Norton VS..
Baxter Finished Friday with
Verdict of $250.50 for Plain
tiff-Juries to Return Mon.

Norton of Readfield VS.. Edward A.
Baxter of Readfield, in which a verdict
was returned for the PLAINTIFF for
$250.50. AS all the cases scheduled to
be heard by the court today have been
settled both juries were excused Fri
day until 10 O'Clock Monday forenoon.
The jury which had been sitting up
on the case Of Salien John VS.. the
Maine Central Railroad reported a dis
agreement at the opening Of court
Friday morning. After this report had
been made the first jury took its place
for the next trial and the members of
the second jury and the supernumer-
airy juror were excused until Monday
forenoon.
| Judge Beane announced that Case
No. 166, Bither VS.. Packard. which was
| scheduled to come before the court
Friday, will be tried at this term of
| court if Mr.. Packard is able to come
into court.
Norton W. Baxter
The next case to occupy the atten-
ton of the court was that e Charles
p. Norton of Readfield vs.. Edward A.
Baxter Of Readfield. an action to re-
cover for labor performed by Mr..
Norton and a man for Mr.. Baxter and
for material furnished and money paid
out for freight all in the building OF
house for Mr.. Baxter in Readield
during the spring of 1915. The amount
claimed by the plaintiff was s245.91.
Ellsworth E. Peacock of Rea dfield wls
| the attorney for the plaintiff and Will
hanson, Burleigh & Mclean of Au-
gusta appeared for the defendant.
| In opening the case Attorney Pea
cock stated that in the spring of 1915
Mr.. Baxter entered into an arrange
ment with Mr.. Norton to furnish ma
terial and perform the work of build
ing the house and to employ another
man to assist him in the work. The
price agreed upon for Mr.. Norton's
work was SO per day. During the prog
ress of building the house several
changes were made from the original
instructions Mr.. Norton did not know
that any fault was found with the
work until he tried to collect his pay
and then Mr.. Baxter informed him
that there were some things that he
did not like about the work. And no
payment has ever been made to Mr..
Norton.
The plaintiff, Mr.. Norton, testified
that he performed his work in build
! ing the house according to his agree
ment with MIR. Baxter and that Mr..
! Baxter came in often during the prog
ress of the work but never found any
fault He testified that the price OF
So per day had been agreed upon as
his pay and in accordance with the
agreement he had hired Charles Gree
lev to work with him at 81 per day.
Upon cross-examination by Attorney
Frank f. Southland the plaintiff testl-
| fled that Mr.. Baxter had never stop
ped him working because he was in
toxicated with cider.
| Charles j. Greeley of Readfield tes-
titled that he had worked part of two
summers for MIR. Norton, last May.
and June, being employed upon Mr.
Bakers house. He admitted that once
Mr.. Baxter had told him to stop work
! because the work was not being done
in a satisfactory manner, but that was
when he was working on the cellar
wall.
Attorney Southland for the defendant
in opening the defense stated that there
was no question but that Mr.. Norton
was entitled to receive pay for the work
he performed for Mr.. Baxter but the
claim of the defendant was that MY
Norton was asking for too much money.
Mr.. Baxter also claimed that the work
was not done in Workmanllke man
ner, that the windows and doors would
not shut tight. that there we're holes IN
the cellar walls and that there We're no
places left for windows. The defend-
ant also claimed that he had smelt CT
der upon Mr.. Norton's breath while lie
was working upon the building.
Edward A. Baxter of Readfield, the
defendant, testified that the price of So
per day for Mr.. Norton had been agreed
upon and that Mr.. Norton was to look
after the work in general and see that
it was rushed right along. According
to his testimony some of the windo VS.
in the house fitted we'll while number
of them did not come up proper and
the inside door frames were not set
tight. The cellar wall was ragged look
ing and on two sides there were holes
which one could see out through. No
holes had been left for windows al
though Mr. Norton had been ordered to
leave these places. And the defendant
testified that on May % Mr.. Norton,
who had been drinking some. came to
work in the morning but later. went
away, leaving the men at sea as u
what to do and that at other times Mr.
Norton had been drinking some but not
enough to keep him from work.
Upon cross-examination by Attorney
Peacock Mr.. Baxter testified that Mr.
Norton had told him he would put ur
good cellar although he was not q
mason, that Mr.. Norton did all the work
Of putting in the windows and hanging
the doors. that he had never told Mr.
Norton while he was doing the work
that the work was unsatisfactory, and
that he had never seen Mr.. Norton
drinking on the premises.
Mr.. Norton testified in rebuttal tha
he had not undertaken to direct the
building of the cellar, that he never
drank any cider on the premises anG
was not in q condition that he could no
do first class work, and that he set thu
door and window frames with a square
and level.