Oxford Democrat., 1921-10-25

tconsInued from uass u


leased the-buildings, but not the land. OF
the Bennett farm, 90 called, owned by
Alonzo Rich. Mr.. Hackett kept q large
herd Of cattle ct this time-twenty three
head and seven horses, 30 had quite Q
quantity OF manure In the spring Of 1920,
which he wished to use, 30 he leased q
farm near by owned BY the defendant.
he began to carry on this land, but
according to his story be and Mr.. An.
drews quarreled over what crops he
should raise, so the contract was broken.
On the other hand II appeared that Mr..
Rich, owner of the Bennett farm, object
ed to Mr.. Hackett carrying of the dress-
Ing as he claimed 1t himself. The result
WAS he leased Hsckett the Bennett farm
for the season of 1920, and the dressing
was used on that farm. In making the
lease Of the Andrews farm there was a
forfeiture clause In the document In
which both parties put up ffty dollars
for faithful performance.
| The suit of Mr.. Hackett is to recover
this fifty dollars, because he claims MIR.
Andrews broke the contract, also for the
value Of labor and dressing on the Ar
drews farm, in all SAC 90.
| Mr.. Andrews, the defendant, was very
deaf and questions had to be submitted
to him in writing.
Verdict in favor Of defendant.
In instructing the jury in one of the
cases on the prep0nderance Of evidence,
Judge Dunn said 1t did not always CON
sist In numbers. If one side brought in
two creditable witnesses and the other
side brought in three not so creditable,
the two would carry more weight than
the three, therefore in such q case the
two should be considered az q preponder.
ance of evidence. II this distinction was
not considered, jury would find itself
in the place of the one which considered
the story of Mike who stole pig. Three
witnesses testified they saw Mike COM
NIT this burglary; and Mike, or bis coun-
sell, to offset this evidence brought in
ten men who did not see him, and so
claimed preponderance of evidence.
In criminal matters Fred F. Eastman
pleaded nol0 to larceny. Extenuating
circumstances was pleaded for defense
by bis attorney, Matthew Mccarthy, and
he was placed under $1,000 bonds for
continuance from term to term.
Frank Jannacci indicted for assault
with intent to kill pleaded guilty to as
sault and battery and was fined $50 and
costs or sixty days in jail.
Two other cases had q preliminary
hearing at this time and were continued
for further action.
Miss Harriet Abbott, Oxford County's
first female juryman or rather jurywo-
man, was excused from further attend
snce on court Friday morning, at her re-
quest. Miss Abbott served as super
numerary, but was q member OF one
drawn jury during the time she was
here, and this was the first case In the
state OF Maine upon which woman has
sat on the jury.
The case which occupied the attention
OF the court Thursday and Friday was
that of Bernard Andrews VS.. Leon Rich
ard Nalley. As q matter of fact there
were three cases tried as one action. In
addition to the case mentioned above
were those Of Leon r. Nalley, admins
traitor, VS.. Bernard Andrews, and Leon
R. Nalley and Lottie NJ. Nalley vs. Ber-
nard Andrews, all concerning trespass
on certain parcel Of land situated in
the town of Canton.
In the first and principal case, Bernard
Andrews vs.. Leon Richard Nslley the
Portland legal firm of W. R. & E. s.
Anthoine with W. r. Anthoine looking
out for the firms interest In the case,
associated with Albert Beliveau of Rum
ford appeared for Mr.. Andrews, while
Mr.. Belivesu appeared alone for that
gentleman in the two latter cases. In
all three cases John P. Swasey appeared
for Mr.. Nslley.
All three cases cluster about certain
small parcel of land, called the four acre
lot, which is almost, If not quite, sur
rounded with land owned by Mr.. An
drews. This four acre lot with the lots
around it are covered with forest, and
have been for many years, so 1t is pretty
hard to locate corners and lines. The
lot has changed hands several times
since 1t was first reserved in 1929. At
that time its northeasterly corner was
certain number of rods from given
point on the range line between lots 10
and 10; but In the lapse Of time these
lines had become obliterated or dim, 80
1t was next to impossible to tell where
they were. In recent years several sur
veyors have been In the woods trying TO
relocate the lines, and each one has tried
to establish different one, until 1t be-
gan to look as II 1t was possible to get
lost with compass. The desirability OF
relocating these lines was due to the
fact that numbering operations have been
carried on within this four acre lot and
on those surrounding 1t, and lumber has
been cut in which the ownership was un-
certain, because the lines were uncer-
tain. 1t was because of the uncertainty
of ownership of certain lots Of lumber
that this suit was brought.
There are two points where 1t is
claimed trespass has been made and some
1057S feet of lumber cut, the ownership
of which was brought before the court
for settlement.
By the length of time they were ont,
the Jury must have been as helplessly
lost in the woods as the entire court had
been for the preceding two days. The
three cases were given them at the noon
| hour Saturday and at about three O'Clock
thew rendered verdict for the defend
ant In the case of Bernard Andrews vs..
Leon Richard Nalley. and for the plain
tiffs in the two cases Leon r. Nalley
administrator vs.. Bernard Andrews, and
4 Leon II. Neii6y anu bOttio III. NANCY We
| Bernard Andrews, the first for damage
| in the sum of $50 90 and the last in the
sum Of $50. 90.
STORIES OF JUDGE DUNN.
Judge Dunn Is very democratic In bis
manners and while he preserves the
proper dignity of the court, he realizes
what 10 simply form and perhaps would
dispense with 1t as far as he could. A
little incident illustrates this. On his
first charge to q traverse jury for the
term, he began his addresss something
like this. Civilization rests on law
therefore we are the servants OF law
We are law abiding men whether we
know the reason for 1t or not. Some
one, not myself, has made the rule tha'
iurymsn should stand when the presto
ing magistrate addresses them. VI
course the jurors obeysd this hint anc
arose. "Thsnk You, gentlemen" salc
the Judge. ''Since you have indicateo
your willingness to obey the law you
may Sit"
Judpe Dunn had the misfortune ont