Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1922-04-06

tered at the Wednesday session of the
Kennebec county superior court by
Lisle L. Burns of Waterville, indict-
cd in two cases, one charging him
with cheating by false pretenses. and
the other, with forgery. The cases
will come up for sentence later in the
term. Attorney FRANK Plumstead of
Waterville is counsel for the respond
emit.
Another case taken up at the call
ing of the criminal docket yesterday
afternoon was that of State VS.. Percy
S. Giles of Clinton, indicted for de-
sertion and non-support of his five
children under 1G years Of age.
respondent entered plea Of not guilty.
He had no counsel.
In the case of State VS.. Martin l..
Tracey. indicted for desertion and
non support it appeared that the
respondent had not been apprehcnd-
ed.
Charles c. Barron, who at the jan
nary term of the court had been in
dicted for descrtion, appeared in court
yesterday afternoon. The case will
he taken up within a few days. At
torney w. c. Atkins of Gardiner is
counsel for Barron.
County Attorney Walter NJ San
born stated at the close of the call
ing of the criminal docket that there
will be very few, if any. criminal
cases for trial this term.
| The old docket was called, and
Probation Officer Edwin Bullock of
South Windsor reported concerning
respondents who are now on proba-
ton.
The trial Of civil cases was com
menced Wednesday morning and will
be continued at the opening of court
this morning. In the first case for
trial. that Of Mrs. Mary M. Merrill Of
Madison VS.. the Lunn Shoe company
of Monmouth. the jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for $131.15,
after considering the case for about
half an hour.
The traverse jurors reported for
duty at 10 o'clock in the forenoon,
and the regular jury for the trial of
cases was empanaled as follows:
Foreman, George P. Coffin, Augusta:
F.. l.. Baker, Vassalboro: Charles NJ.
Chapman, Winslow: Frank G. Hall,
Windsor; Samuel w Jones. Gardi-
ner; George M. Lane. Readfeld:
Aaron Norton, Hallowell; Daniel III.
Sherman. Randolph; I.inwood Strick-
land. Clinton; A. n. Ward, Winslow:
Hiram II. Weymouth. Augusta: Ed
gar n. Whitaker. Albion. The SUPER
numerary jurors are: Charles F.
johnson. Gardiner; T. w. I.ongley,
Sidney; and Amos A. Winters. Wat
ervillc. Those excused from iurv
service We're: Herbert N. Beach. Wat
ierville; Waldron f. kennison, Wat
orville: Guy Mosher, Oakland; Alfred
{. Eastman, Augusta; Herbert r,
Kelley, Waterville; and Harriet Fl
Holmes. Augusta.
Merrill VS.. Lunn Shoe Co.
The first Of the civil cases for trial
that of Mrs Mary NJ Merrill of Mad
lson VS.. the Lunn Shoe company OF
Monmouth, was an action in assumsit
on an account annexed in which
Plaintiff sought to recover dana ees
IN the sum of $125 with interest for
la three-horsepower Westernhouse
electrlc motor which she claimed she
rad sold to the defendant company
ana Tor which she had never receiy-
cd any pay. Attorney Carl f. Gctch-
ell or Auburn appeared as counsel
Tor the plaintiff, While the defendant
company was represented by Attor-
ney Albert f. Verrill Of Auburn.
The plaintiff. Mrs. Harry E. Mer-
rill of Madison, formerly of Mon
mouth. testified that she was the
| owner OF the electric motor which in
the spring of 1921 she had loaned to
the John D. Lunn shoe company of
Monmouth. She testified that in
April of that year the question came
up as to the purchase of the motor
and she had talked with John d.
Lunn, president of the COMPANY
| about 1t: that the price of s125 was
mentioned and she had told Mr.. Lunn
she would rather have a check than
stock. She had not received the
! check
Some correspondence regarding the
matter was read by Attorney
! Getchell
Cross examined. Mrs. Merrill tes-
uhed that the main thing concerning
which she and Mr.. Lunn had talked.
was a strip of land owned by Mrs.
Merrill and upon which the Lunn
shoe factory jutted over about II
feet
Harry f. Merrill of Madison testi-
| fed that about year ago he had
talked with Mr.. Lunn about the lat
| Ter buying the motor, that Mr.. Lupn
was then undecided, but the next day
Roy ID. woodbury. told him, with Mr..
| Lunn standing nearby. that Mr.. Lunn
mad informed him that he (Mr. Lunn)
was going to buy the motor.
Roy d. Woodbury. of Monmouth
testified that one day at the Mon
mouth station Mr.. Lunn had told
nm that lie guessed he WOULD buy
the motor from Mrs. Merrill.
Defense
Attorney Nerrill representing the
defendant company then made a mo-
tion to the court for a non-suit for
the reason that at no place in the
testimony was there a contract
shown whereby the Lunn company
had agreed to buy the motor.
Attorney Getchell pointed out that
the testimony showed that the motor
was in the factory and that word
was brought to Mr.. Merrill that Mr..
Lunn was going to buy it; that the
letters. showed that Mr. Lunn re-
ceived the invoice for the motor
which meant a sale.