The Republican journal., 1921-10-06

Orrin j. Dickey VS.. j. j. Emery; nei-
| ther party; no further action.
Peter Harmon ct al VS.. Allen Dyer; de-
faulted by agreement.
Hasty ct ais VS.. Drake; neither party;
| no further action.
Heinz VS.. Drake, assigned for second
day January term.
Brown VS.. Gray; defaulted for $25.
Franklin Paint Co. VS.. Adams, second
day January term.
Annis VS.. Cook; defaulted.
Harding & Rackliffe VS.. Miller; default
! ed by agreement.
Morrill, VS.. Peters and Shaw; non-suit.
Brooks Grain Co. VS.. Mercier; default
! ed
Clement VS.. Insurance Co., two cases;
! continued
Pelkie VS.. Bennett; assigned to first
day January term.
One of the most important and most
interesting civil cases for many terms
was opened before the jury Wednesday
noon and continued until Friday after
noon. The case was brought by Lutte L.
Rogers of Troy against William B. Ken
dali and the Sagadahoc Fertilizer Com
. pany of Bowdoinham to recover $12, 1000
! damages, which the plaintiff claimed was
due to using the defendants products in
the season of 1919. The counsel for the
plaintiff was Robert F. Dunton of Belfast
and Charles Perkins of WaterviIle, with
Arthur S. Littletield of Rockland and En-
nest L. Mclean of Augusta for the de-
| PENDANTS.
Mr.. Rogers testified that he bought
chemicals of the defendants to use in
formula recommended by County Agent
N. s. Donahue; that the chemicals con-
tanned such large amount of borax that
his potato crop was practically ruined
and that the yield was about 40 instead
of from $50 or 500 bushels per acre. Mr.
i Rogers sent samples of the chemicals to
the Experiment Station at the University
of Maine. The plaintiffs side called six
| teen witnesses, among them Mr.. G. M.
Mitchell of Troy, who also used some of
| the defendants chemicals and also sent
samples to the u. of NJ Prof James Nj.
Bartlett, chemist at the U. of NJ, testified
that the samples he analyZed had the
presence of boraX to the amount of about
six pounds to the ton in both cases. Prof
Charles D. Woods, former director of the
! U. of M. Experiment Station, was an ex-
pert witness; also DR.. w. j. Morse, the
present director. A. M. Soule of the
State Department of Agriculture, testi-
fled that he had examined the plaintiffs S
| field and found the presence and effects
of borax. The defence claimed that the
failure of the crop was due to the i'm
proper mixing of the chemicals, mistakes
in cutting the seed potatoes and also in
planting too near to the fertilizer The
defence called their agent, James Ames,
who testified that he examined the Rog-
ers field in 1919, but did not think the
crop failure was due to borax. George
A. Woods of Pittsfield said practically
| the same thing. E. A. Rogers of Bruns-
wick was introduced as an expert in
raising potatoes and criticised the plain
| titf's methods, etc, used in his work in
! 1919. Chief Justice Cornish's charge to
the jury was of vital interest to many not
concerned in the case or in potato raising
as it was SO fair and impartial. He di-
| rected the jury to fix the damages if they
found verdict for the plaintiff, at the
actual damage to the crop, with interest.
| The jury deliberated an hour and return
! ed verdict for the plaintiff with $3,-
| 1871. The time for filing exceptions by
defendants was extended to Nov. 18th.
| The case Of Charles N. Foster of Ban
J gor VS.. the City of Belfast, entered this