Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-04-05
SUPERIOR court.
April Term Convenes Tuesday,
Verdict for Plaintiff in First
Case Tried, Wadleigh
VS.. Tuck.

sum OF $210.45 was returned In the
Wadleigh VS.. Tuck case Of Readheld
at the Tuesday Afternoon session OF the
superior court for Kennebec county
the April term Of which convened in
the morning at the court house with
Judge Fred Emery Beane Of Halo
well presiding.
At the opening Of court prayer was
offered by Rev. Paul S. Phalen Of the
Unitarian church. The grand jurors
then reported and Immediately after
wards went into session.
Juries lmpaneIed
The two traverse juries were impan-
eled as follows:
First jury-Foreman, w. N. Kimball,
Winthrop; Maurice B. Appleton, Au-
w. Burroughs. Winthrop; c. E. Car
ter, Waterville; Ernest S. Currier,
Hallowen; w. A. Goodwin, Oakland;
Fred n. Hamlin, Gardiner; w. S.
Jackson, WaterYille; C. F. Moody,
Monmouth; B. w. Weber, Vassal-
boro; Dana A. Wilkins, Windsor.
Second jury-Moreman, Howard E.
Andrews. Hallowell; Fred o. Boynton,
Augusta; J. Fred Crossman, China;
Guy A. Dow, Augusta; c. H. Downs,
Winslow: William F. Eastman, Gar
diner; John Fisher, Vassalboro; Will
l.. Hilton, Augusta; George Hinkley,
Chelsea; w. w. Nash, Pittston; Frank
Smiley. Winslow; Ozro Weber, vi
emma.
Supernumerary jurors-Wellington
Blair, Gardiner; Herbert w. Fairfield
Augusta. Excused-Alonzo b. Morrill,
Waterville; William Levine, Water
Vile; Ray L. Norris, Wayne; Horace
M. Parker, Waterville.
The remainder Of the forenoon ses-
sion was taken up with the calling OF
the civil docket and the assigning OF
cases.
Attorneys Present
| The following attorneys were present
at the opening of the term: George w
Eeselton, o. 3. Clason, w. c. Atkins
c. A. Knight and E. H. Maxcy, all o.
Gardiner; Ellsworth E. Peacock, Read
field; Attorney General w. r. Pattan
gall, County Attorney w. H. Fisher
Judge Of Probate Harold E. Cook
Frank G. harrington, Harold l. Goss
John B. Madore, Herbert E. Locke
Charles l.. Andrews, w. NJ. Sanborn
]. L. Boyle, Frank E. Southland, Sam
uel Titcomb, John E. Nelson, M. s
HolWay, G. Arthur F. Tiffin, NJ E
Sawtelle. Fortunat Belleau, Frank L
Dutton, f. NJ. Thompson, B. F. Maher
all of Augusta; H. E. Foster. L. I
Carleton, Winthrop: George w. Field
Oakland; Percy A. Smith, Fairfield; F
w. Clair, c. w. Atchley, J. A. Letour
neau, C. w. Hussey, c. A. Backing
ton, F. E. Brown, Frank o. Dean, H
D. Eaton, all of Waterville; Emery
Beane. Hallowell A. K. Butler, Show
hogan; Dana S. Williams and Charlie
Hosmer of Lewiston.
ReadfieId Case
The case of Isaac d. Wadleigh O
Readfeld VS. j. Granville Tuck of Read
field was opened at the beginning of tn
afternoon session. Frank A. Southar
Of the law firm of Williamson Burleig
& Mclean Of Augusta was the attorne
for the plaintiff while A. K. Butler O
Skowhegan appeared for the defendan
This was an action on account Q
damage to land owned by Mr.. Wad
leigh by. fire, which was started b
Mr.. Tuck. The plaintiff claimed dam
ages in the sum of 5000 on account O
an agreement, which he said was mad
between the defendant and himself b
which they submitted the question Q
liability of damage to two men. An
according to the claim of the plainti
the defendant had agreed to abide b
the decision Of the two men. Thes
men were chosen and after looking owe
the damaged property appraised tn
damage at $500 but the defendant refus
ed to pay this amount.
The plaintiff, Mr.. Wadleigh, testif1e
that on April %. 1914. property owne
by him was damaged by Mr.. Tuck SCI
ting fire to some brush His land &C
joined Mr.. Tuck's land. After the fiji
he met Mr.. Tuck and later they agree
each to pick man and to abide by the
appraisal. The two men chosen accom-
panied by Mr.. Tuck and himself wer
upon the land. The plaintiff then der
titled the report Of the appraisers. An
he further testified that Mr.. Tuck late
said he would have some money in
, few days and he would come in the
, and settle up.
William o. Gordon and David I
Tingley both Of Readfield testified tn;
they had acted as appraisers in the ma
/ ter and they identified their repor
which estimated the amount of II
; damage 800 Mr.. Gordon testified tn;
+ Mr.. Tuck had said before they went VI
, on the property that he was willing
pay the damages.
, Defense
| According to the claim Of the defen'
. ant there had been no agreement b.
tween the two parties to be bound /
the report of the appraisers. Mr.. Tue
, had said that he was willing to pay tt
l damage and he and Mr.. Wadleigh ha
agreed to go over the premises togethe
| Later Mr.. Wadleigh had said that I
> had a man and had told Mr.. Tuck to g
r man to look over the property and e.
, innate the damage. But the defens
, claimed that Mr.. Tuck had never agree
, that the finding Of the two men chose
, should be Anal.
J. Granville Tuck, the defendant, we
the last witness in the case. He test
fed that in 1915 he had some conve
sation with Mr.. Wadleigh about tt
damage and he tried to get Mr.. Wa
leigh to go up and look over the pro-
erty. Mr.. wadleigh once said that
would go later on. After that Mr.. Wa,