Oxford Democrat., 1921-11-01
Supreme judicial Court
OCTOBER TERN, 1921.

/ SuUt0u0 Ju0bStol SVoHS
ocroBER TERN, 1921.
Judge-Charles ]. Dunn.
| Clerk-Donald B. Partridge.
sterographer-Fred L. Hayden.
County Attorney-Harry II. Shaw.
sherif-Harry b. Cole.
Deputies-John A. Babb, g. q. Coleman. B.
Crier-Harry o. stimson.
Librarian-Walter L. Gray.
Messenger 81. Davis.
The third week of the Supreme Judi.
cial Court for Oxford County began with
the case of Frederick L. Ray vs. K. I.
| DUPONT DeNemours g. Company, with
r. A. Morey of Lewiston representing
Mr.. Ray and the firm OF Bradley, Lin
nell & Jones of Portland representing
the defendant company.
This Is the third time this case has
been In the Oxford County courts.
It is q flowage case, the cause Of which
is dam In the Kezar River at the foot
of the five Kezar Lakes In the town OF
Lowell. The dam which is claimed to
do all the damage was erected BY the
defendants In the year 1918, and the
back water is claimed to overflow the
farm of Mr.. Ray.
The story OF the dam goes back num-
ber of years-back to 1874 when the first
dam was built on this outlet. At that
time Eben Fox owned and operated
saw and grist mill on the Kezr River at
Lowell village, and wanting more water
for this purpose built dam on the out
let OF the five ponds for storage purposes.
He purchased the land about the outlet
80 as to control the water. 1t was boggy
land 80 the water seeped through 1t In
various places. Mr.. Fox dug an outlet
from the lake FIVE and one-half feet
deep-that is five and one-half feet be-
low the natural level of the water-and
put in dam to raise 1t to the original
level. he and others used this dam for
a number of years, when 1t was aban.
doned and the water allowed to run
through the dam as 1t pleased. Then
the defendants rebuilt the dam, which
Mr.. Ray says has damaged him, causing
the water to flow over valuable wood
land and over valuable cranberry bog.
The defendants say they have never
raised the water above the natural level
or above where they have q right to
raise 1t, and II Mr.. Rays land Is flooded
now where 1t has been dry, 1t is because
the water Of late years has been flowing
below the natural level.
Verdict for plaintiff.
The flowage case was the last of the
civil list to be tried.
The criminal docket was then taken
up Wednesday forenoon.
The first case on this docket to be
tried was that of State of Maine vs..
Homer Truman for felonious assault up
on the body of little girl, Alice R. Col
Inns, twelve years old. County Attorney
Harry Shaw appeared for state and Dana
Williams of Lewiston for Truman.
Both parties reside on the same street
In Norway, near neighbors.
Both parties agree that Truman took
the little girl and two other children to
an auto ride on certain Monday In June
but they disagree as to the day Of the
month. They both agree that they stop |
ped at the pumping station but disagree
as to time. Truman was able to account
for his time, leaving but few minutes
in which to commit the crime.
The jury was out five hours but was
unable to come to an agreement, and |
was discharged.
Some little time after the indictments |
of the grand jury were reported, four
extra ones were made public as follows:
State of Maine vs. Louis Merino. Manufac. |
ture and sale Of intoxicating liq iors.
State Of Maine vs. Merton e. Rawson. Issuing |
fraudulent checks.
State Of Maine vs.. Joseph Fontaine. Selling |
m ua1 pr0Darty.
State Of Maine VS.. Fred 1aneuf. Manufactur. |
ing Intoxicating liquors.
The first of these cases was brought |
before the court Wednesday forenoon:
State of Maine vs.. Louis Merino of Rum
ford for the manufacture and sale of In. |
toxicating liquors. He pleaded nolo |
contendere. The respondent was repre- |
sented by George A. Hutohins of Rum
ford. he was given two months in Jail,
the sentence to begin October 8, when |
he was first committed, and fine Of
800. In case Of failure to pay. fine, be
was sentenced to stay another six months
in Jail.
On Thursday after the Truman rape
case bad gone to the jury, that of John
Smith, who gave his residence as Ban
gor but who came to Maine some three
years ago from Oklahoma, was taken up.
de was charged with entering the camps
of John Morrison situated In Township
8, Range 8, and attempting to carry
away some of the contents. he was
detected in this act by Game Warden
George o. Wilbur OF Rangeley, arrested
by him, and brought before County
Attorney Harry NJ. Shaw.
He said be had no intention of stealing
but simply entered the camps to sleep.
He was defended by Albert Bsliveau
by appointment of the court.
Verdict not guilty.
The next case to be tried was that of
State of Maine vs. Fred Faueuf for the
manufacture of Intoxicating liquor. Mr..
Faneuf lives In Norway, and on Sept. 4
his house was raided by Sheriff Harry
D. Cole and Deputy Sheriff Harry o.
Stimson and q sixteen gallon keg Of
home-brew found and seized. This keg
was taken to the strong room of the
county buildings, where sample Of the
contents was sent the University of
Maine, where the analysis showed twelve
and one-bslf per cent of alcohol.
Mr.. Faneuf employed w. G. Consry as
counsel, and he contended that the con-
tents of the cssk, which was made Of
eight pounds of malt, eight pounds OF
sugar, one half pound OF hops and two
yeast cakes, was not Intoxicating when
made or when seized by the sheriff; but
that 1t remained some fifteen days in the
hands of the sheriff before the sample
was taken and in those fifteen days the
alcoholic content formed.
This ia the first case In Oxford County
under the new law which forbids the
manufacture of Intoxicating liquor, cider
excepted, but not its purchase or use,
and 1t Is intended to be test case.
The verdict brought in by the jury
was guilty.
Sentence $1,000 fine and sixty days 10
Jail.
State OF Maine vs.. Charles Lozis, for
en- bezzlement to the amount of $1,000
from Annie Wsrrenni, both parties from
Rumford, was tried Thursday afternoon,
County Attorney Shaw for state and AL
bert Beliveau for defendant. Verdict
not guilty.
On Friday morning the Indictment
against David A. Ladd for msnufaotur-
ing intoxicating liquors was heard. The
manufacture was admitted, but the re-
spondent claimed exemption from the
law because 1t was made on July 4, be-
fore the present law went into effect.