Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1922-01-14

Of 1918. He testified that she had
never paid him for the hay. nor for
. cook stove which he had sold to
her for 50. Upon cross-examination
Mr.. Ltttleneld testified that he had
never asked Mrs. Hanson for the pay
ment OF the hay, but that she had
"dunned'' herself for II on two occa-
sions. and that without asking her for
payment he had sued her. He also
stated that Mrs. Hanson. was wit
ness for him when he got his divorce
In 1919 and that later he had settled
with her for the witness fee. He stat
ed that he did not know it he had
ever said that he had sold the hay to
both Mr.. and Mrs. Hahson: and that
4 bill for this with an attorney to col
} lect.
The defendant, Mrs. Hanson. testified
that she did not buy any hay OF Mr..
| Littleneld and that there was no talk
between Mr.. Littlefield and har hus-
band regarding the hay in her pres
ence. Further. Mr.. Littlefeld had new
er asked her to way for any hay. In
regard to the stove. she testified that
| Mr.. Littlefield had told her to try 1t
! out and IL 1t was no good to dump II.
| It was no good. according to her tes-
| timony, for 1t smoked to such an ex-
| tent that she could not do any baking
| In it.
Albert Fogg Of Winthrop gave tcs-
timony TO contradict that offered by Mr..
| Littlefield to the effect that he had
| never told Mr.. Fogg that he had sold
the hay to both Mr.. and Mrs. Hanson.
It appeared that Mr.. Hanson had
been taken i'll and was unable to be
/ present at the trial. but deposition
was read by Attorney Carleton IN
which Mr.. Hanson had testified that he
was the one who had bought the hay.
and that 1t was not his wife.
Ellinwood vs.. Diplock
| An Augusta case was opened just
before the court adjournment for the
day. that of George A. Ellinwood VS..
| Wallace Diplock. This is an action
Of assumption on an account annex
| ed, together with an account in offset,
in which it Is agreed by the defend
ant that he amount stated in the
1
plaintiff and unpaid. The controver-
sy 10 over the account filed in offset
by the defendant amounting to s252,
| which he claimed was due him for his
| services as upholsterer at Mr.. Ell:n-
woods furniture store at the rate
Of 81 per week for 126 weeks from
April 1916 to September 1918.
! Attorney Arthur F. Tiff1n Of the
law firm Of Fisher & Tiffin is attor-
nay 70 rthe defendant, while he
plaintiff is represented by Attorney
Burleigh Martin. The case will be
resumed this Saturday morning.
The only witness at yesterdays
session was the defendant. Mr.. Dip
lock. He testified that he Eas for
merly employed at the Ellinwood fur
niture store, and that about May 1921
! he left there after having been with
Mr.. Ellinwood for about seven years.
He testified to time in 1916 when
he was about to leave the employ OF
Mr.. Ellinwood, and Mr.. Ellinwood
had then offered him 81 per week if
he would do the upholstery work. this
sum being in addition to the salary
that Mr.. Diplock received as clerk in
the store. When he left there, he
knew that he owed Mr.. Ellinwood
money for the furniture he had
bought at the store He said nothing
to Mr.. Ellinwood about the matter.
for Mr.. Ellinwood also owed him
some, he testified.
Upon croSs-eXaminatione by Attor-.
ney Martin, Mr.. Diplock testified that
Mr.. Eilinwood had sent him bill for
the furniture he had purchased at
that store and that he had sent word
to Mr.. Ellinwood oering to settle at
any time. He had never made de-
mand for the 1852 that Mr.. Ellinwood
owed him, until Mr.. Ellinwood had
sent in his bill He had then made
claim Of the 1852 in Offset. He tes
titled that even while Mr.. Ellinwood
was owing him money. he had con-
tinued to pay Mr.. Ellinwood money
on the account he owed him. He
knew that he owed a balance to Mr.
Ellinwood, he stated.
At that point the testimony. was
closed for the day. and court was adj
journed to this Saturday morning.
The criminal docket will be called
at 2 o'clock this afternoon.