Oxford Democrat., 1921-10-25
Supreme judicial Court
OCTOBER TERN, 1871.

Judge-Charles ]. Dunn.
Clerk-Donald B. Partridge.
stenographer-Fred L. Hayden.
County Attorney-Harry n. Shaw.
SheriR-Harry d. Cole.
Deputies-John A. Babb. g. Il. Coleman, B.
Crier-Harry O. stimson.
Librarian-Walter L. Gray.
Messenger-George H. Davis.
The first case placed on trial ct the
opening day of the second week OF the
Supreme judicial Court was that OF
Raphael Rudens vs. Joe Ploplis, with
Matthew Mccarthy appearing for Rudens
and Messrs. A. e. Stearns and Albert
Beliveau for Ploplis.
This case was picture given the jury
and attendants at court OF the social and
convivial life OF our neightors, the Poles
at Rumford. The stories as told by the
witnesses we're In the Polish language
and had to be interpreted by Abram
Stern, who has served the Poles and the
court in this capacity many terms.
1t SCENE ths principals In this case on
q certain Sunday OF January last put In
Q good portion OF the time gambling,
and as an inspiration imbibed liberal por.
tions of whiskey split with cider. 1t IL
claimed Rudens was flush with money,
having about $24 90 In cash In addition
to q check for about $26. 90, and the sum
of $1,000 which he bad drawn from the
bank. His cash disappeared first, then
the proceeds Of the check, and lastly
quite q portion OF bis bank account.
When be came to count up after the
debauch all be had left was $4,000; 20
be claims bis opponent must have got
away with about $1,000 of bis reserve
fund to say nothing OF the cash he had
before the reserve was brought into play.
During the time they had been playing
he had imbibed of the liquor mentioned
above more freely than his antagonist,
so was hardly in condition to compete
with him at cards; and
moreover he claims the cards used were
produced b. the defendant and were
marked; SO under these circumstances
be was seeking to recover the amount
lost.
1t may be of interest to know the
variety Of game used 10 these gambling
operations. It was neither poker nor
old maid but game called "tweuty-
one." In the language of the profession
1t was q "swift" game. The man who
handles the pssteboards deals his oppo-
nent cards from the under side Of the
pack, back up until the player has the
value OF twenty-one or as nearly that as
possible; then he deals cards to himself,
face up, to the same amount. II the
dealer wins he deals second time, and
IL be wins this time third, when the
round ends and the winner takes the pot.
II he does not win he passes the cards to
the other party. The stakes are doubled
at each corner. Ploplis says the stakes
were small, beginning at one dollar and
progressing upwards. Rudens, on the
other hand, says they were large, begin.
ming at $1,000 and running as high ~
$50 90. Some color Was given this last
statement by the fact that this money
was In bills of the denominations OF
$40 90 and $40 90; but no matter the
size of the pot, Rudens squealed and
brought this suit.
The verdict was for the plaintiff, the
defendant being forced to return the
$1,000 alleged to be his ill-gotten gains.
The Rudens. Ploplis case occupied the
time of the court until Tuesday after.
noon, at which time the case of Annie
Pledge vs. James Pledge was brought
up, with Alton G. Wheeler acting for
Mrs. Pledge and Merton l.. KimbaIl for
Mr.. Pledge.
This case was tried before Q drawn
jury. 1t may be matter Of interest to
state that on this jury was drawn Miss
Harriet Abbott; so this case may 90
down In history as the first case in OK
ford County in which Q woman took
part In fixing the verdict.
This is q case In which the plaintiff,
Mrs. Annie Pledge, sought to recover
$40 for twenty-seven weeks services ~
housekeeper and nurse.
Mrs.. Pledge is the wife OF william
Pledge of North Ando7er, Mass, . nsph.
ew OF James Pledge, the defendant, who
resides in Norway. The wife Of James
Pledge died In the summer OF 1920, and
this nephew and bis wife came to Nor
way very shortly after to visit the uncle.
James Pledge has no children except
an adopted daughter. He liked this
nephew and his wife and asked them to
stay with him during the rest OF his life,
promising to give the wife as compenss.
tlon for this service bis house With the
furniture contained therein.
The young man worked ut various
things during bis stay In Norway. Tho
elder Mr.. Pledge is . butcher and has
kept market in Norway for Q number
of years. The younger Mr.. Pledge went
to work in this market, but he and the
uncle quarreled, so he and his wife re-
turned to Massschusetts.
It was for the time Mrs. Pledge was In
the house ss housekeeper, from October
1, 1920, until April, 1921, twenty.seven
weeks, that she sues for services.
The elder Mr.. Pledge is not Q strong
man and has to have some medical assist.
auce. Mrs. Pledge gave him bis medi.
cine and made him some extra food on
account Of this illness, and for this she
has brought in bill for nursing. The
elder Mr.. Pledge 10 Q social man and has
card parties anywhere from one to f1ve
or six times week; and men, not noted
for their cleanliness, made . mess OF
things on these occasions, which made
extra work. 1t is for these various serv-
ices that Mrs. Pledge sought to recover
at the rate of twenty dollars per week.
The verdict in the case Of Pledge 70.
Pledge was rendered the plaintiff, Mrs.
Annie Pledge, in the sum OF 1878 90.
The Hrst case Wednesday morning
was George N. Stevens Of East Water.
ford vs. Carroll Brown Of Portland.
George G. Wing, Jr., Of Auburn appeared
for Mr.. Stevens and William d. Gulliver
of Portland for Mr.. Brown.
This suit is for the recovery Of 1856 30
worth OF lumber sold the defendant By
tho plaintiff. This transaction took
place In 1915. Tho defendant at that
time claimed TO bs treasurer OF the For.
est City Lumber Company and the trade
was made In the name of that company,
which company WAS the sole properly
of tho said Brown. Mr.. Stevens sued
the company 10 Androscoggin County Ia
which no formerly lived and obtained
Judgment against II, which wss never
sstisf fled; and this suit Was . continue
ton of the litigation. After this much
of It was presented the jury, the case
was nonsuited on technical grounds.
After this case Was disposed OF during
the forenoon the twin cases Ut Lawrence
l.. Smith pro AMI W. Arthur L. HarrI-
man, one In the sum OF $500 and tho
other In the sum Of $135 were taken up,
Fred r. Dyer appearing for Mr. Smith
and Eugene r. Smith for Mr.. Hartman.
The plaintiff resides ip Buck6eld and
the defendant In Norway.
This is the case involving the purchase
of saw mill 10 Buck field by the plain
tiff from the defendant. At the time OF
the purchase the plaintiff was Q minor,