The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1922-10-05
I,pREsf JUDICIAL COURT


fu11 IN IeDuIt"i ~
% 81 6 concord, who is a cousin
" C, pI mother, testified that she
carr Id Miss Beane walking to-
'arl an Curren Smiths house
! ne'' and one-half miles below
one an the Concord side of the
an H On ioy time during the
10 W" ,o9t At the first trial Mr..
!.s Of I represented by H. E. Locke '.e
va s,r no Of Pattangall & Locke %. OF
l'in Nd also by the Hon. Thomas
ia a ,nqIsta. At this trial the case
o. , n@3 for Mr.. Carl by Mr.
0nu 5 Mr.. Pattangall which last
anu attorney conducted the
Oneu ,ination and agrued the case
n".1 VIM. Folsom Merrill of
a. f. Merrill & Merrill, Skow-
gu uorosented Miss Became at both
Ier verdict was returned for
The case attracted much
BeaIe' ~
po'i TT Al. VS. MURRAY & IRIS
~ If Edward f. Merrill and
'' roIsom Merrill VS. Mitchell
and The First National Bank
4 Segan. Gardiner Savings In
r. Vaine Trust K Banking Co
National Bank of Gardiner
I, heard Friday. The jury re-
yerdict saturday forenoon in
Of ss61.56 for the plaintiffs
resulted from Murray giving
~ Thomas Hodgdon for the
/. Of $500. later Hodgdon dis
the note to the law firm OF
e Merrill in Skowhegan. Mr.
c,aIms that he never signed
and suit was brought to re-
ase amount of the note with in
rbich Hodgdon claims Murray
Mrs. Thomas Hodgdon OF
| testified that she saw Murray
I note which he gave to her
\ m Sept. 10, 1921, in the Show
postoftice some time between
Il three o'clock. The defense
| Mr.. Murray was in Waterville
lime This was substantiated
Charles L. Morse of Water
Srifo Of a monument dealer in
flle. she produced books in
transaction was recorded
: that business had been done
| Worse firm with Mr.. Murray
l brother Harry Murray on the
fneruoon that Mrs. Hodgdon
4 IN have seen the note signed
| skowhegan Postoffice. She
tO1nced a check which the Muir
N made in payment on the deal
|bdgdon was recalled and shown
Esral specimens of hand writ
dcb she identified as being that
Murray. These were admitted
hparison with admitted sigma
\ Mr. Murray. Mr.. Murray in
+imony denied about half of the
N signatures. including a paper
he signed in Mr.. Buffers office
'paper was a part of the plead
Gpd in court by his attorneys
kodsmith OF The First National
has called by the plaintiff t6
i the Murray signatures. While
Idsmith could not be positive
signatures on the note was
he as the admitted signatures
ID that it appeared to be. The
claims that altho Mr.. Murray
AVE gone to Wateryille as he
Morse stated that Mrs. Hodg
ght have been mistaken as to
let time of day the note was
or that the date written in the
the Tenth, might in fact have
mistake as to the exact day the
Is given or perhaps the Muir
en mistaken as to the exact
lev returned from Wateryille
|ray was represented by Butler
Er with George w. Cover APP
for the First National Bank as
errill & Merrill, the plaintiffs
presented by w. r. Pattangall
sta. This was the first case
Mrs. G. r. Fogg, the only wo-
mber of the traverse jury was
htO as she is on the supernu-
list.
RICK vs. ELDRIDGE BROS.
|ase of Samuel w. Herrick of
y VS. Eldridge Bros. of Dexter
Saturday, Attorney Waldron
b. for the plaintiff and Attor-
bee for defense corporation.
an action in which suit was
10 recover for lumber and a
was returned for the plaintiff
|um of $233.95. 1t appears that
prick had a pile of pine plank
ridge. Fred Ring also had a
pine plank near the plank be-
to Mr.. Herrick. The plank
& to Mr.. Ring had been pur-
y Eldridge Bros. and that firm
puck to move the lumber to
Mr.. Ring was away when
! arrived and it was claimed
lumber belonging to Mr.. Her
taken to Dexter instead of
D belonging to Mr.. Ring but
ke however. Later Mr.. Her
'6ed Eldridge Bros. that they
n his lumber and Mgr. Fred
Elk of the Eldridge Bros. mott
Herrick that his firm would
Be matter. Later it was
that S. W. Herrick and Atty.
went to Eldridge Bros. to
it, the tally slip was pro-
id given TO S. sW. Herr1ck
slip taken to Gould's office
AIMED also that S. w. Herrick
the tally slip which had
y lost The question came
lecision by the jurors upon
lumber the defendant firm
en- belonged to Mr.. Herrick
value of the same.