Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1916-03-21

v
for his horse, that the horse WAS repfe
tsented to him to be not over twelve year.
old but WAS really much older; that thu
horse was represented ~ oil right and d
for woman 10 drive. whereas he W
sprung kneed and not safe for woman
driving; and that the robe, which WI
not with the outfit when the trade VA
made, was represented to be ten dolla,
robe, while its actual value was abou'
80 cents.
Perkins of Cornish for the plaintiff
Hugh Warren Hastings of Fryeburg fol
the defendant.
This case went to the jury Thursday
forenoon, and after being out 40 houl
and three-quarters they returned YER
dict for the plaintiff In the sum Of e97 so
AN ORDERED VERDICT.
Following the horse case, some law
suits from the Magalloway region held
the stage, the first being Mary E. Linnell
Va. VIM. o. rockingham. Mrs. Linnell,
the plaintiff, is the widow Of Winslow
w. Linnell Of Aagalloway Plantation
The defendant named in the writ is the
sheriff of Oxford County, though the
case has nothing to do with him, but
concerns the official act of one of bis
deputies, Ernest s. Bennett of Lincoln
Plantation. Even he, AZ It appeared,
had 40 financial interest In the outcome,
a. he Was protected with bond, the
party who was actually defending the
suit being the surviving partner Of the
firm of Frank Smith & Co. of Lancaster.
N. 81.
James S. Wright for the plaintiff; l..
w. Blanchard for the defendant.
The suit was brought TO recover for
some twenty-five tons of pressed hay
seized and sold at the Liunell barn In
June, 1915, by Deputy Sheriff Bennett on
an execution. This execution was secur.
ed In suit brought by Frank Smith &
Co. sgainst Winslow W. Linnell and bis
wife, but later the action was discontin-
ned as to Mrs. Linnell and the execution
was against Mr.. Linnell alone. Mrs.
Linnell claimed the hay which was seiz.
ed, as she held the deeds Of the farm,
and had paid for the harvesting.
For the defence Mr.. Blanchard put on
quite lot of evidence, against the OBJ
jections of Mr.. Wright, to show that Mr..
Linnell ran the farm as his OVID, and
that acting on his representations re-
garding 1t, Frank Smith g Co. gave Mr..
Linnell credit to considerable amount.
Mrs. Liunell did not make 1t known that
she held the title to the property.
At the conclusion of the evidence
Judge Haley directed the jury to return
a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of
s40l.50. Exceptions are filed by the de-
fence.
EIGHT GEESE AND TwENTY-sEvEN HENS.
Following. came another Magsllowsy
Plantation Case, and another delegation
Of the residents of that burg appeared as
parties and witnesses, having like those
in the preceding case travelled some forty
miles by team and fifty miles by rail to
get here.
This case was Helen NJ. Wilson vs. Ma
thaniel r. Leach. It was brought to re-
cover for eight geese and twenty-seven
hens and chickens sold to Mr.. Leach,
who ia the proprietor OF the Aziscoos
House at Wilson's Mills. The geese and
hens were sold to Mr.. Leach In 1910 by
Henry Bird, who was at that time the
husband of the plaintiff, but whom she
had then left and from whom she later
procured divorce. Mrs. Bird owned
the farm, which she Inherited at the
death of her first husband, and she
claimed the ownership of the geese and
hens. and alleged that she told Mr..
Leach before the fowls wer6 delivered to
him thst.she was the owner of them.
Mr.. Bird, her former husband, claimed
to have bought the geese and to have
made frequent additions by purchase to
the flock Of hens, 80 that his interest In
them was at least as large as bis wife's.
It also appeared that portion of the
proceeds of the sale was applied to the
payment Of bill which Mr.. Leach had
against Mr.. Bird for hotel service fur
nished Mrs. Bird at the Umbsgog House
at Enrol, at that time owned by Mr..
Leach. Mr.. Leach denied having had
any notice that the fowl we're claimed
by the wife before the purchase was
made.
The attorneys were tie same as in the
preceding case, Wright for plaintiff,
Blanchard for defendant. All the fore
noon and q slice of the afternoon, of
Friday was occupied by the trial.
After being out about an hour, the jury
returned verdict for the plaintiff in the
sum of 5000.
A LINE CASE.
"'TaIn't no fun to listen to this" was