Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1920-01-26
SUPERIOR court
Case Of Sawyer vs..
Cheney Heard
Verdict of xN % for Pias-trfT Ee-
ts-nsa ny Jury Saturday Aste--
nsnr-CrIy One Morr ciui! Case
70 De iSUarr THIS Term

The civil caae, lIsroc1-t z. SAWYER
Of Au-nsta We. Frank s Cheney Of
Augusta, WIS opened al the Sa1u.-
cay morning session Of the kanne-
bee superior court T'.zis was IN ac-
ton On c1se on account annexed ii.
whaca plaintiff e;alued rhe sg-r IF
$@W a. commission On the sale of :
farm II Augusta Jct1n t Nelson
OF the law firm Of Andrews & Neil
/ soa was a1Ia-ney fur the plaintiff
and z. F. Mahsr was counsel for The
defendeut
The plaintiff. M SAWYER. .asr:tea
ne mas been N the TrlI estate bust
ness about - wears and mas an
etfice III Augusta. He testified re-
ga-dIng lis connectlon with Mr..
Cheney n the ma-ter of selling his
Earl- winch contains soras 80 acres
and Ii located On the Bangor road
about a mile out of the CITY proper.
Mr. Cheney had toid him he wanted
70 get s6.spb and Nj Sawyer said lie
WnEto take . per cent for his corT4-
Ts.sEion- Mr.. sawyer had told Mr.
cheney that his arrangement would
ailow him f0ee TO take any price,
bit his commissions wouid be 5 ner
cent PlaIurlr testified he had pre-
TioDsly come II touch viii William
Tanner Of Winthrop, nne OF. the dav
following his talk WITT. NJ. Cheney
n June 1919, he introduced Mr.. Tan
her 70 NJ CheneN. They lauize5
ever the farm and then returned 10
the carriage house 70 talk The mat
ter over. Mr. Cheney gave MI
Turner the price Of 81 NOT and rner
made another price Of about S. ,g6
including certain stock IN the farm.
NJ. Cheney had saia he was fi-p-irir
has price low and he did. not know
! about the . per cent commission.
Mr.. Sawyer hid anGwsrad that
W.latsve- price Mr.. Cheney made
lis commission would be per cent
Plaintiff testified mat ne Lad tried
10 get the Parties tagether -lc
lowest price Mr.. Cheney would Jiit4.a
Ga rhe 1arm with STOCK was ss,s,d.
Later, Mr., Sawyer had hearr u.
-@rm had been sold. anG All ITEM
y the keu.iebec journal stated line
Larra LAD been sold through a.
add II the journal -ha- was III
August lg1a. Mr. Sawyer a. once
went Up u see Mr.. Cheney who WIS
then moving OF the place He had
asked Mr.. Cheney T his man had
bought the place, and NJ. Chene-
lad answered. ne had sold Il 70 Mr..
Parent Mr.. Sawyer asked 4 Nj
Tanner WAS coming outa the place
and ~ar. Cheney answered riiAt ~
anew netting about M Tanner
pon cress-exaE1inarion. Mr. saw
yer testified that Ar. Tanner nsve.l'
saia h. would pay sseaa In INC
summer Of 1919 there was a si-u in
trent Of THE farm, farm Tor sa!e.
An ADD Of the turn for sale an
pearaa II The Ksruebec journal, bI,
2iaIrrff testified ne did not have =
ou1 There Plaintiff upon redirect
examination testified that was
&greed WITH Mr.. Cheney rat fer
: whateF-er price r-le farm was sold ne
was TO ret:etye ) per cent.
The nezr witness was Edward z
Paref-. ar-ornsy a. law. Of Lewis
ton VINO testified That he acted As
attorney for Mr.. Tanner and az ris
suggestion came ~ Augusta in re-
gard 10 the farm ulatter Cheney
agreed 10 sen the farm fsr 1850 Or
! >. ,7W. Mr.. Cheney had SAID lnat
MI. sawyer Lad had ne Place fer
sale. bur That ne did not wish to SCI:
7 the place II ne mad 10 pay Mr.. Saw
! ger or any raaI estate agent a COM
mission. The farm, finally was to BE-
put in M. Parents name. Mr.
/ Tanner paid 10 Mr. Cheney a NOR
rs fa
eheck- Mrs. Cheney had showed
him The a1d fer The fG-m which ap-
aeared II the Jou-nal, they STATING
/ mat tins was SO he could saw ht ma :
seen the add
pom c-ass-exa UIi-ariar, IN a1-wer
4 - question by -Arrorne~ Maher If
Mr. Parent had acted rs a dummy 4
the ansactior. ne testified that he
PRESUMED he Gic. Al C71euevfs suc-
sestion The farm was taken in lis
Name. he testified thar he ha
4 come over 10 gee If !le could pu--
chase the property cheaper than Mr..
Cheney had offered II TO NJ Tan
ner. At Mr.. Cheney's su-gesrlop
the farm WIS decided to M. Parerr
I The deeds af NJ. Chgney TO a5r.
: III
7 Tanner were pun in the case lv tbe
I plaintiff.
! Defense
The CLAIM Of the deferse was that he
I Plaintiff Is entitled 70 no commission
4! for the figure ne was holding The place
/ a. was figure no person would ply
| and that Mr.. Sawyer was thus prui1ih-
+ ring the zale. And defense claimed ttia-
Mr.. Sawyer never produced a custom
e. who WIS willing 70 buy the place q.
he price the Plaintiff put On. that there
( was never arg percentage contract be
I tween Cheney and Sawyer; that the
+, contract was for q fixed sun net TO the
owner.
The defendant NJ. Thene- restified
! that II WIS, about the spring Of Tai7
] wne1. he listed the ea-rn with Mr.. saw
yer. bur Ar. Sawyer ord NOT BRING am
customers n Isi7 or Isle Mr. Chensy-
fisc had listed the fa7u WITH other
agencies Efe had told Mr Savior thu
/ he would take sspe0 net far ellc piace.
/ In June, fass, h. had talked with M-.
sawyer about the sale of me farm and
| tnid hzn his price WIS sEyn including
pa-t of The tools. Sawr-t- sajH he
Z would have n rst s7nrr ----,T n, s,.,,,7 49,,