Oxford Democrat., 1921-10-18
Harry L. Kilburn, Rumford.
William Shand, Rumford.
Thomas McMaster, Mexico.
Frank Pye, Rumford.

asked the rather unusual question:
"How many soldiers did King George
the Third send over to America to put
down the Revolutionf"
| The candidate hesitated.
"Oh, WE'LL" continued the judge, "thst
is not fair question. II any one should
ask it OF me could not answer. But !
asked IL once of candidate and received
the brightest reply of my life, 80 bright
reply that I thought 1t would be
United States loss II the man was not
admitted to citizenship. His answer
was 81 don't know; but he sent over q
damn sight more than went home!"
One candidate, Mstti Komulainen, was
denied citizenship papers because of bis
inability to read English. The judge In
bis refusal was very kind. "His exami-
nation" he said, twas satisfactory ex.
cept for this lack of education which he
hoped, seeing he was yet young, he
would make good before some other
judge"
At the afternoon session ona other
candidate appeared for naturalization,
Joseph Ross by name OF Rumford.
Naturalization was denied as the exami.
nation was unsatisfactory. During this
examination Judge Dunn inquired
whether the candidate believed 10 polyg-
amy? The candidate not understanding,
the judge explained IL was having more
than one wife at the same time. The
candidate made answer that one wife
was plenty.
On Wednesday afternoon the specially
assigned case OF Daniel q. Trip vs. The
Inhabitants of Porter was put before the
jury. William B. Randall and Alton G.
Wheeler appeared for Tripp with Walter
P. Perkins and Fred r. Dyer for the
town of Porter. This was q claim
against the town for damages from In.
juries received by the plaintiff by reason
of an alleged dangerous piece OF road.
After the case was presented 1t WIS nom
suited.
After the Porter case the twin cases
Of Charles B. Andrews vs. Andrew A.
Jenkins and Mary B. Andrews vs.. An
drew A. jenkins were placed on trial,
with Alton G. Wheeler appearing for the
plaintiffs and Walter L. Gray and Fred
r. Dyer for the defendant In both suits.
Mr.. Andrews resides on Paris Hill,
and until last July carried the mail, and
Incidentally passengers, between that
village and the depot In South Paris. In
this bis wife, Mary B. Andrews, assisted
him at times. 1t seems that on October
1st, 1919, Mr.. Andrews took load Of
baggage and proceeded toward South
Paris. he was followed by Mrs. An
drews In another team with the mail and
two passengers. Mr.. Andrews started
Q.ok ~ -oa ao~a lttkla Itakonoa IN nd
vance of his wife. When Mr.. Andrews
was nearing the Park Street Bridge In
South Paris, he met Mr.. Jenkins With
load of apple barrels piled on to Ford
touring car. They were piled all over
the car 80 that the driver had but linn.
tied vision of the road according to Mr..
Andrews. About mile farther back
on the road Mrs. Andrews met this load
of barrels driven by Mr.. jenkins. Mrs.
Andrews horse showed signs Of fright
at this strange load, and she signaled to
the auto driver to stop, but he did not
do 90. She got out Of the wagon and
took the horse by the head. Between
the antics Of the horse and the catching
OF the barrels In her dress, according to
her story, she was thrown down and one
leg broken. 1t was bad fracture 90
she was obliged to 60 around on crutches
for some ten months, when she went to
q hospital in Portland for an operation.
The injury promises to be permanent,
and her suit is for damages from injuries
which she fixed at $1,000. Her husbands
suit Is for expenses paid on account OF
bis wife, which are fixed at $1,000.
The chief difference In the stories OF
the plaintiff and defendant is that Mr..
jenkins claims that he stopped his load.
ed Ford when he saw that Mrs. Andrews'
horse was showing signs of fright, and
when the animal cooled down started on,
and did not know of the accident. And
this statement was corroborated by Mrs.
Daniels, o passenger with Mrs. Andrews.
The Judge and jury visited the scene
of the accident Thursday morning, and
Mr.. jenkins had bis auto at the court
house with load Of barrels as demon
strstion.
The verdict In the case Of Charles B.
Andrews vs. Andrew A. jenkins was for
the plaintiff in the sum Of $l.00; In the
case of Mary A. Andrews vs. Andrew A.
Jenkins was for the plaintiff In the sum
Of $400.
At the close of the Andrews-J Jenkins
cases Thursday afternoon, WAS put on an
action for sssumpsit by Mrs. Lottie Kim
ball vs. Richard Ford, In which Messrs.
Beliveau and Stearns appeared for the
plaintiff and Messrs. Hutchins and
Parker appeared for the defendant. The
story az told by the plaintiff had very
human element in 1t. Il seems Mrs.
Kim ball, who is q widow with three chill
dren, became acquainted with the de.
fendant some sixteen years ago. Some
two years after their acquaintance be
came to board at her house, where they
became very friendly-became engaged
in fact-then she went to his house as
bousekeeper, and whore she performed
all the work of wife and became inter-
ested in all the things he did. This
state of things existed until some time
iu January, when another woman ap-
pesred upon the scene and destroyed
her little heaven, so she seeks at the
hands of the court recompense for board
and service for the term Of fourteen
years. Both parties live In Mexico. The
case was withdrawn from the jury and
settled outside the court room.