The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1923-10-04
OvERRULES MOTION OF
THE DEFENDANT
Rescript Received from Law Court In
Case OF Traiton VS.. [. ,.
BObbin d Shuttle 20.

A reseript has been handed dowr
by the law court in the Somerse
county case of Lionel G. Trafton Of
Skowhegan VS. the L. S. Bobbin &
Shuttle Company, oYerruling the mo
ton of the defendant.
The rescript, per curtain, Is as foi'
lows:
This case Is before us upon gener-
nj motion for a new trial filed by de
PENDANT, but without a general YER
diet. II me motion is overruled. We
have no basis, other than. the amount
claimed in the writ, upon which to en-
ter Judgment. The parties have
agreed however, that IL the motion
fails. an auditor will be appointed
whose report shall be accepted as
final, and that judgment shall be en-
tered thereon. Upon that agreement
we proceed to consider the case.
The parties are at issue as to the
price per thousand feet of logs to be
paid by the defendant to the plaintiff
under an oral contract made in the
spring of 1918 and performed the next
winter. Their respective contentious
are thus stated infthe brief filed for
defendant:
"The plaintiff claimed that the de-
PENDANT promised to pay $3.50 per
thousand feet, and in event that
amount did not cover the cost to the
plaintiff such further sum as would
make him whole. In other words, II
the plaintiff were able to perform the
contract at a cost less than $3.50 per
thousand feet, the difference would
be his profit on the transaction. III
il cost more. his profit would be elm
mated, but he would be entitled to
receive the additional amount requir-
ed to equal the cost.
The defendant, on the other hand,
contended that fiat price of $40 per
thousand feet was agreed upon"
The issue was submitted to the jury
who sustained the plaintiffs conten-
ton upon a special verdict, and the
motion for a new trial followed.
The record does not disclose any
ground which will justify us in sus-
tanning the motion. The evidence was
fatty contradictory, three witnesses
testified, but plaintiff and one other in
support of his contention and the de-
PENDANTS manager, with whom the
contract was made.
Under the business conditions exist
ing in 1918 which are disclosed at
length in the record, 1t cannot be said
that the terms Of the contract as
claimed by the plaintiff are unreason-
able or improbable; the jury may have
found that under such conditions 1t is
highly improbable that the plaintiff
would have made a contract for fiat
sum as claimed by the defendant. and
we cannot say that such view would
be unwarranted, considering the fur
Their fact that defendant might call
for hauling some of the logs on
wheels.
Again, the jury may have found that
the defendant paid the plaintiff, on
account of the logs delivered under
the CONTRACT, at the rate Of $19;50.per
thousand and have regarded this fact
as sustaining plaintiff.
On the other hand, the defendant
relied upon certain letters between
plaintiff and Mr. Skinner, defendants
manager in particular letter writ
ten by the latter to plaintiff dated
February 25, 1919, containing a ref
erence to the terms of the contract
in harmony with defendants conten-
ton. But this letter is not original
evidence of the terms of the contract;
its force lies in the fact that no ans
wer was returned by plaintiff; but
the plaintiff made his explanation of