The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1923-09-27
State vs. Divide We're, nuisance.
State VS. Patrick WEIGH and Paul
LeClair, breaking. entering and lar
CASES DISPOSED OF

LeClafr, breaking, entering anu lar
ceny.
CASES DISPOSED OF
Among the cases set for trial the
following have been disposed of:
Iaral Bean vs. Willie Miller, defaplted
to be heard in damages; Taylor BIOS
G. Hill vs. Matilda Beane, neigh par
ty no further action; Clyde =, Mar
tin vs. Frank M. Fairbanks OF Pitts
field, Judgment for plaintiff for prop
erty replevied without costs; John 5.
Libby VS. Clarence e. Hanson and
John M. Lawrence, neither party no
further action; E. P. Dyer and Z. b.
Nutting of Hartland VS. Alice Kimball,
judgment for plaintiff for property re-
pleyied; William Macbeth ys ID, II.
Lawrence, w. f. MoClintock and E. A.
Coyell, continued; E. Kelly and Ma
sonic trustee of Fairfield vs. DR.. L. H.
Miller, defaulted; Addie Tompkins VS.
Thomas H. Bigelow defaulted; Abra-
ham L. Maxfield VS. Edna NJ. Fogg and
r. H. Brann defaulted; o. N. Haglund
vs. Walter Henderson, to be referred;
o. F. Parks VS. George A. Tapley and
P. S. Littleield. building and land,
judgment for plaintiff; Thomas E.
Getchell VS. George A. Tapley and P.
s. 'Littlefield, building and land,
judgment for plaintiff; Frank L. Hol-
lister vs. S. d. Warren Co. neither
party no further action. In the
promissory note case of w. II. Dudley
VS. John L. Sterry, the matter will be
heard by the court.
sUsI VS. GRAY
The case of Dominic M. Susi of
Pittsfeld VS. Fred w. Gray of Clinton
was begun Friday afternoon continu-
ing into the day Saturday. j. e. Nc
Michael and F. E. Bridgeham, two
jurymen from Pittsfeld were excused
from the panel and two supernnmar-
les Lyman Scribner of Cornville and
F. N. Collamore of Palmyra, were
substituted. This action was brought
relative to a boundary line of the
Hiram Chamberlain farm in Burn
ham, which Mr.. Snsi purchased from
Mr. Gray for the sum of $4553. 1t
seems that both Mr.. Susi and Mr.
Gray decided to leave the matter of
deciding where the western boundary
line Of the farm should be to three
men, Mr.. Susi to select one, Mr.. Gray
one, with the third to be chosen by
these two representatives. These
men after viewing the premises de-
cided that Susi was entitled to recoy-
er from Gray in the sum of 5000. The
plaintiff claims that Gray later re-
fused to nay. The principal ques-
tions to settle were whether the ar
bitrators were appointed to settle the
matter, whether they did SO and
whether they awarded the amount al
ready referred to. Mr.. Susi was the
first witness and stated that he made
claim of damages because the
| boundary line of the farm didn't go as
far west as it should and that he
and Mr.. Gray couldn't agree as to the
| liability of damages. Witness sale
he selected William Osborne of Pitts
! field, that Mr.. Grey selected Everett
Davis of Burnham and these two gen
tlemen selected Ralph Baxter OF
Pittsfield. Mr.. Susi and Mr.. Gray
met with these three gentlemen al
the time they went to the Gray farm
| to make the Investigations. Mr.. Sus
said after the arbitrators had set the
amount of damages due him, Mr.
Gray said he was not going to incur
further costs in the case, but that he
was going to settle later. witness
said Gray had never done so.
William Osborne told of having
served with the other two men II
making the examinations to deter
mine if the line in question was mis-
represented and If so what the dam
ages should be, arriving at a verdict
of 5000. Under cross examination
witness said the arbitrators had ne
oath administered.
The defense denied that he ever
agreed to arbitrate any dispute, ant
that the survey was not legally made
Mr.. Gray in his testimony alleged
that he had not misrepresented the
boundary line in question, but thai
he said he didn't know about the line
He said Mr.. Susi wanted to appoint
three men and that it should be
square deal. He told of the agree
ment to appoint the men as already
mentioned and of his selection Of
Everett Davis to serve on the board
Witness said he didn't agree to pay
Susi later. Mr.. Gray testified to see
ing the three men on the premises
and Mr. Davis told of the agreement
as to damages. A verdict was re-
turned for Mr.. Susi in the sum Of
| $215.70. II. r, Coolidge for this
plaintiff, Buzzell & Thornton for the
defense. Attorney Thornton filed q
motion for a new trial.
CLAPP co. VS. HOLT
The case of Charles G. Clapp Co
of Boston vs L. c. Holt of Norridge.
wpck was heard Saturday with Der.
nard Gibbs of Madison for the plain
tiff and A. X. Butler for the defense
Suit was brought to recover com
mission on the sale of the Holt farm
in Norridgewock which had beer
listed with the plaintiff concern
through the Smithfield agent, Ear
Stevens. A written contract was
drawn up which stated that the com
pany was to have all received from
the sale of the farm above $4,000 OF
II sold for less, ten per cent of this
sale price, If sold by the company OF
any one else within twenty-fouI
r,outlo IF fho doto In tho writ or