Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-09-22
OPEN SUSI-GRAY
FARM SALE CASE

Pittsfield VS.. Fred w. Gray, former
ly of Bingham, now of Clinton, was
the next case to come up for consid-
GRAFTON Of the court. Two men on
the first jury before whom this case
was to be tried, F. f. Brigham and
j. Z. McMichael. both of Pittsfield,
were excused and Lyman Scribner Of
Cornville and Frank y. Collomore of
Palmyra from the supernumeraries
were called to take their places. The
plaintiff was represented by Attor-
and the defense by Attorney Thorn
ton of Buzzell G. Thornton of Belfast.
Coolidge in his declaration stated
that Susi purchased a farm of Mr..
Gray. the farm to contain $50 acres,
the price being s4350. The writ was
dated June 81, 1922 and the amount
sued for was $500. Mr. Coolidge
stated that the location Of the west
line was found soon after the pur-
chase not to be as far over by $50
rods by IL as represented by Gray
at the time of the purchase and that
it made a difference of IA acres and
1874 square rods, valued at $500. That
Mr. Susi when he found that the line
did not go where he claimed Gray
said it did, that Susi saw Gray and
ltC lIldl vi dy anu
Susi agreed to leave the matter out
to three arbitrator. Mr.. Gray and
Mr.. SuSi each to select a man and
the two men to select a third and to
abide by their arbitration. The wit
nesses for the plaintiff were Mr.. Susi
and William n. Osborne of Pitts
field, who told of the selection of the
men and of their visit to the farm for
considering the question and going
over the lines in the presence of both
Mr.. Gray and MrA Susi. Mr. Osborne
said that the three men chalked for
the damage and decided upon 5000
which Mr.. Gray should pay Mr.. Susi.
Attorney Thornton in his opening
said the defense would show and
prove that the defendant never made
any agreement to leave it out to
three men and abide by their deci-
sion and that the decision arrived at
by the three men was not made in
legal manner. Mr.. Gray and his wife,
Mrs. Rose Gray, and Everett Davis,
the man chosen by Mr.. Gray, were
the witnesses for the defense.
Mr.. Gray in his testimony corrob-
grated the opening of Mr.. Thornton.
Mr.. Davis told of the visit of the
three men at the farm and stated
that he chalked with the other two
men to estimate the damage as he
supposed the majority would rule.
When asked just how they chalked
he said that each man put down an
amount and that the total was di-
vided by three. At the close of the
defense testimony Mr.. Coolidge call
ed rebuttal, Ralph Baxter, the third
man, who said that these men were
called to arbitrate and that they did
so and they set the award at $500 to
the plaintiff.
During the trial, Judge Philbrick
instructed the attorneys that the Is
sue in the case dissolved itself into
four points: First, were the arbl-
traitors chosen; second, did they per-
form the duties of arbitration;. third,
did they make an award; and fourth,
has there been a refusal to pay the
prove and the defense prove that
these points did not occur.
After the testimony was all in on
both sides, Attorney Thornton re-
uuested the privilege to make mo-
tion to the court, which was grant,
ed and the jurors retired. Mr.. Thorn
ton moved that the Judge direct
verdict for the defendant as the
plaintiff had failed to prove the &C
ton as set out in his defamation.
Judge Philbrick declined to direct
verdict and the jurors We're excused
until $50 Saturday morning when
the attorneys will present their ar
guments. p.
The case Of William McBeth, rep
resented by Andrews, Nelson u
VS.. B. F. Lawrence, w. F.
McClintock and E. A. Covell, rep
resented by Butler g. Butler of
for Covel, harrington of
Augusta for Lawrence, and Perkins
& weeks of Waterville for McClin-
took. assigned for trial on Thursday
morning, Sept. 20, in the assigned
list, was continued.
The case of Abraham L. Maxfield
vs.. Edna NJ. Fog gand r. H. Brann,