Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1922-04-08
SUPERIOR court
j. w. Butman of Read
field Loses One Suit;
Wins Other
Ceorae Booker Gets Verdict $21.53
for Sons Wages - Bert c. Wells
Loses Suit to Retain Ownership of
Engine

A verdict OF s21.53 for the plaintiff
was returned by. the jury in the case
of Booker VS.. Butman which was
heard Friday at the Superior Court.
This is action brought by a father to
recover money said to be due his mi
nor boy for services rendered. George
r. Booker. the father. claims that the
boy did not receive pay commensurate
with his services, and prayed that lie
be awarded $26.
/ The plaintiff, George Booker Of
Readfield was represented by Attor-
ney Ellsworth Peacock of Waterville
and tho defendant. J. w. Butman of
Readfield by Attorney Chas. ]. Cole
Of Readfield. Two members of the
jury, George P. Coffin Of Augusta
and George M. Lane Of Readfield were
challenged by the plaintiff and their
places were taken by T. w. Longley
OF Sidney and Amos Winters of Wat
erville.
In testimony. the boy, Alpha Book
err, told of going to work for But
man on Nov. 13 and of finishing the
work on Dec. 81. He said that he
about the farm doing chores, that he
had been called upon to work saving
wood for the neighbors with a power
saw. and also to load wood at the
station.
The question of the proper wages
for boy doing that sort of work
seemed to be the main point in the
case and in this connection Bert
Wells of Readfield testified that he
had hired boys for work of that kind
and that he had paid as high as S45
o month.
In defense Mr.. Butman said that
the boy had not even approached a
mans work while there except upon
one-half day, that the boy was not
a willing worker and that he was out
about every evening. He also test-
fed that he had asked the boy if IS
a week over and above his keep WIS
sufficient and that the boy had said
. it was.
After some elaboration the jury re-
turned the verdict of $21.53.
Wells VS.. BJtman
In the afternoon the case of Wells
vs.. Butman was taken up. In this
case Bert c. Wells of Readfield seeks
to recover 5000 for the removal from
premises which he had bought Of J.
w. Butman. of a gasoline engine
which he claimed was part Of the
water system and as such was part
OF the property. The verdict in this
case was for the defendant.
He told of buying the land and
house and of seeing the engine at
tached to the pump in the cellar
whenever he was there. The value
Of the engine and the he rae- power he
did not know as lie bad little know
ledge of engines. He said that short
ly after he had moved onto the place
he found the engine removed to the
top of the cellar stairs one day and
that he had put it back. He had also
ted Butman that the engine went
with the property.
The engine was later taken away
and he found that Butman had it. He
told Butman' that if he did not pay
for the engine he would sue for it.
Mrs. Minnie Burnell, who had lived
in the house until she was forced to
vacate that the Wells family might
move in, said that while she was
there the water was pumped regu-
ularly by the engine except in the
cold weather when it was impossible
to start it.
William II. Roy, called by the
PLAINTIFF. sprung surprise when he
said that the engine was not worth
more than $50. and that he had it
at that time to be fixed.
In defense, Mr.. Butman said that
he had purchased the engine for
wood saving and things OF that ma
ture. He said that he had had some
wood to be hauled that year and that
his hired man might get to work
earlier. the pump was hitched to this
engine, to speed that part OF the
work up. It was purely a tempo
rary measure. He also said that the
price of the same kind of a machine,
new. would be about s145.
Martin Curtis of North Monmouth,
who had formerly lived in Rcadfield,
and Charles Brisbin Of ReadfieId tcs-
titled to the use of the engine for
J other work and BrisbIn said that in
his opinion the engine might be
worth $50.
The law as laid down in this case
by Judge Beane was that this is a
case where the, jury would decide if
the defendant had meant to make
the article in question a part of the
water works and thus a part of the
, property. Judge Beane then said
that if the jury found that he so in
tended, that they might award not
5 over $50, the estimate Of the value
, of the engine. plus the interest.
In this last case the plaintiff was
represented by Attorney Ellsworth
Peacock of Waterville and the de-
PENDANT by Attorneys Charles j. Cole
OF Readfield and Harold E. Cook Of
Gardiner. The same two jurors were
challenged by the plaintiff and their
places were taken by Amos Winters
: OF Waterville and Charles F. john
son Of Gardiner.
At the conclusion Of the latter case,
Judge Beane excused the jurors un-
; til Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
Il.