Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-01-18
SUPERIOR court
Verdict of 81 for Plaintiff Is Re-
turned in Case of Ames VS..
Robinson, Which Had Been
Heard on Tuesday

returned in the case of AmeS VS.. Rob
inson at Wednesdays session of the SUI
perior court. c. n. Perkins Of Water
vile, attorney for the plaintiff. filed
during the day motion to set the YER
dict aside and hearing upon the motion
will be held before Judge Beane on
| Thursday, Jan. 25.
At the opening Of the session Judge
Beane gave the charge to the jury in
the case of James II. Ames of Bow
doinham VS.. Llewellyn G. Robinson of
Albion. which had been heard at the
court Tuesday. The jury retired at
1910 A. NJ. to decide upon the case, re-
turning at 1850 with the verdict.
! Norton VS.. St. Leser
The next case taken up was an action
brought by ]. A. Norton of Augusta VS..
Michael ST. Leger Of Skowhegan. f.
L. Mclean of the law firm of William
son, Burleigh G Mclean of Augusta
was counsel for the plaintiff and Fol-
som Merrill of the law firm of Merrill
&; Merrill of Skowhegan appeared for
the defendant.
| The plaintiff sought to recover the
sum of S89.57 which he claimed was
| due him from the defendant as COM
mission upon certain rugs he had sold
for the defendant by the terms of an
agreement existing between Mr. st. Lee
| ger and Mr.. Norton. The plaintiff had en-
tered into the agreement to sell rugs
| for the defendant, who is proprietor of
the Oriental Rug Works at Skowhegan.
MI Norton had been employed similar
ly by Edmund Pouln of Skowhegan,
VINO was the former owner of the ORR
entail Rug Works, and at the time Mr..
Poulin sold the business to Mr. St Lee
ger the plaintiff, according to his claim,
went to Skowhegan for settlement.
ST. Leger had made payment to Nor
| ton but there was a small balance due
| and st. Leger had hired Norton to con-
tlnue selling rugs, according to the
plaintiffs claim. and had made pay
ments at first on account but then the
payments stopped.
Josiah a. Norton of Augusta, the
plaintiff. testified that he had formerly
been street commissioner of Augusta.
he mad entered the employ of Poulin in
| 1870 selling rugs and later he had
| heard that Poulin had sold the bust
| ness ana desired him to come to Show
hesan tor settlement. Witness had
gone to Skowhegan. st. Leger had sub
sequently made payment to him but
| there was balance due of S1753. Nor
ton had agreed with ST Leger that be
! would continue to sell rugs. receiving
20 per cent commission on orders t,rn.
ed in.
| TlalntlH upon DISCRIMINATION said
he worked for ST. Leger on the same
l lin Il -
there were two rugs he had not given
st. Leger credit for.
| Defense
| The defence of the case. as stated nv
Attorney Merrill, was that the terms of
| the contract provided Norton should re-
ceive commissions only on the rugs
which were accepted by the consignees
ana there had been s30S worth of rugs
refused; that Norton had charged com
mission upon all orders; that for reason
Norton was to receive commissions ONLY
| on the rugs accepted st. Leger had at
no time paid money on all the orders
sent in, and that the bill was not due to
the plaintiff. And the defendant sought
| to recover.
Michael st. Leger, the defendant, testi-
fed that he is the proprietor Of the ORR
| entail Rug Works at Skowhegan. He had
| suggested to Norton that he would nav
10 per cent. commissions, but Norton had
refused to accept this and St Leger had
! then told Norton he could continue SELL
ing on the 20 per cent terms of the con-
tract and testified that he had filed or
! ders as received. Certain orders had
| hnn
! time had the defendant paid Norton %
per cent. of all the orders sent in. Some
of the orders Norton had taken for
Poulin were filled after Norton had start
ed to work for st. Leger.
Edmund Poulin of Skowhegan, former
| proprietor Of the Oriental Rug Works,
| testified that he had sold the business
to St. Leger and he explained the terms
under which Norton had worked for him.
| The commissions were only upon the
work that went into the rugs and Poulin
would pay nothing on rugs refused or on
| materials.
| Mr.. ST Leger testified that the amount
| of the orders refused was $3os.55 and he
| said he was accustomed to advertise
sales of the rugs which had been refused,
these rugs selling at about list price.
| Witness testified as to overcharges and
materials furnished and he said he had
sent Norton two sample rugs, valued at
50 each.
In rebuttal Norton said he had noti-
fed ST. Ledger that he had ceased
working for him. giving as reason
that he ought to have his pay. He tes-
tilted he had written st. Ledger for
money.
Mr.. ST. Leger testified in sur-rebuttal
that by advice Of his counsel he had
not answered the letters.
The case was then argued by the
attorneys. Judge Beane will give the
charge to the jury in the case at the
opening Of court this morning.
| Cases for Today
The following civil cases are in or
6.r for trial at today's session:
s1a-snow W. Dow. Blackington;
Dow. Bridges.