The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1922-04-20

! Ella inning that liz never received TIC
! fertilizer as. per agreement With the
note given or Wheeler L was
/ claimed that in the fail OF the year Mr.
! Wheeler and Mr. Smith had some talk
about fertilizer for 1921 aud That
/ Wheeler wanted "a order fertilizer Tor
! 1921, they had various conference
! and on Seq, ~. 1921 ~ Smith had
talk with Mr. Wheeler and signed
| the 1862 note II WAS fur
! Their claimed thai ihe tee men talk
ed about the first note and That II N5-
alleged II be Of no value The next
year the defense alleges that tas Ter
] tilizer did not come and ary'r came.
/ hence the defence claimed thar they
were not liable for the SECOND note
i witnesses for the defence Wer# Sir
and Mrs smith and Their son Hzfph
IN the ease Of Wheeler fs NJ and
Mrs smith. Judgment wa4 fer %.
plnlntIn in the sum at kzfIl tut
the case OF Wheeler ~ So aud ST..
smith and RnlpH Smith f.rHH1 #a-
returned I'm t5e sum - f.ltfzz la'
/ the paintin
In he case If Frauk y Thompson
y Deputy Shef o. A kHmH## nt
pusdeld. which W1s heard i fBt
court saturday an entry ef naa s5f
for the plautin and Judgment -. rc-
Nrn ~ property feuieklDsd 50 oI
dered II seems HepHtk shrrH sH-
ball bad attached Sm ra critic
Witch we're black and Mn. Ual55e.ns
and Chevrolet automobile H' =Wte
upon which Mr. Thompson of Hart
land claimed 70 have MORTGAGE a
replevIn suit va brought fn recover
the same This ease grew out - the
+ fWo actions brought by SIR MHeeler.
CASE GONTlNt ED
The easc Of Forrest q Heane OF
Bingham. father of FRANKIE VI. ieane
" Raymond Carl of Bingham AMI the
First National Bank of SHOW hogan,
TT. was continued without costs 10
witnes, 20 this term.
SOUGHT TO RECOVER FOR LAeOi
The ease Of Robert Davidson, OF
| Roxbury. Mass, vs. John Nelson ana
William Nelson of Arson. which was
set at the end of the civil list from
| the day of its assignment on April I
wa taken up Monday with VIM FOL
som Merrill of the firm Of Merrill Il
Merrill. appearing for the plaintiff ana
A. x. Butler of the firm Of Butler IL
Butler appearing for the defense. Ac-
ton was brought to recover Tor labor
which it was claimed was performer
by Mr. Davidson at the farm OF the
defendants who are his nepheWs. MI
Davidson was the only witness on the
plaintiff side. He testified that he
came to Maine on July 6. 1920, to Yl'it
his sister Mrs. Sarah Nelson, oil An
son, intending to stay not more than
ten days Later the plaintin had ms
| trunk come as John Nelson, he claim
! ed, wanted him to stay and help the
| family out. He claimed he stayed a
/ little over year with the exception
of being away for two weeks, and
while there as. listed with the house
work, helped get the years supply OF
wood, sawed it and helped work II up
and also assisted in the harvesting ,pI
crops He received as gift $40 TIE
morning he went away on MS Vaca-
ticn, also two pair Of shoes and 50 at
another time. The plaintiff claimed
that John Nelson agreed to send him
some money and that he wrote twice
| to him without response. The plant ~
claimed that he had not heard from
! his sister for nine years and that ne
! had not written to her during that
time so far as he could recall. The
defence was to the effect that Mr..
| Davidson was in poor health and that
he did write to his sister that be was
thinking of visiting her: thathe came
| q nd a
little over year except for Two
weeks. The defense also claimed that
! Mr.. Davidson claimed TO he sick; that
he did no work; that he lived on the
Nelson family and that they never
asked him to bring his trunk. 1t was
| also claimed that there was not work
/ enough on the place to keep one man
busy. The case was not given to the
| jury as a verdict was ordered for the
defendant on motion of the attorney
for the plaintiff.
CRIMINAL CASES
| The Davidson VS. Nelson case was
the last civil case of the term and the
criminal cases We're begun Monday
afternoon. The first case heard was
that of State VS. George Sicket OF
Madison charged with the manufac-
ture of Intoxicating liquor in viola
ton of the laws of the State. The
home of the respondent is at the rear
of the Welfare Theatre in the bust
ness section of Madison. The wit
nesses for the State were Deputy
Sheriff f. S. Adams of Madison, and
Deputy Sheriff j. T. Thibodeau OF
| Skowhegan. In reareh and seizure
process there in which they were as
sisted by other deputies, Mr.. Adams
testified that he found in an upstairs
closet in n box with some old clothes
bottle containing what he believed
to be home brewed alcohol, and that he
found a boiler and stand which he be-
lieved were parts of home brew out
fit The State was represented by
County Attorney James II, Thorne and
W. b. Brown, Esq, appeared for the
respondent The defense included Il
suggestion that the bottle did not con
tain intoxicating liquor and that the
liquor was manufactured prior to June
goth when the present law wenteInto
effect people previous to that time
having had the right to brew liquor