The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1923-02-01
SUPREME judicial C0URT
Continued from Page One)

Theodore Fremont, Leonard st. Laur-
emit, Arthur st. Laurent and Robert
Langevin for breaking. entering and
larceny; State VS. Theodore Fremont,
Leonard st. Laurent and Robert Lang
evin for breaking. entering and lar
tpny: State vs. Theodore Fremont,
Leonard st. Laurent and Robert
Langevin, escape; State vs. George b.
4 Smith. Atwell Getchell and Norman
| L. Richards, larceny; state Va George
lib. Smith, Arthur Levenaeller ana
'lCAdric shives. larceny; State Va F. b.
Smith. Geo. Warren, breaking, enter
ing. and larceny; State VS. Fred b.
Smith, George Warren, Frank Murray
and David Knox. breaking, entering
ana larceny; State VS. Fred l.. futile
and Merton Tuttfe for violation of the
game laws.
I pAeEkt1 NOT INDICTED
Arthur Haseau who was held on The
charge of breaEihs, entering and far-
ceny from a .8h0ftlng camp In Pitts
ton TgwnShfp, was not Indicted.
PaReaa comes from ST. Zaehrle, Can
ada and WIS tfought by the officers
to know soihethlng or the insisting
game wafdeins. David Brown and sfyfs
tley iJ0hnaen; for whose bodies wide
tseafch has been conducted.
HUMpHREYs ct AL vs. OLIVER 4
SON, INC.
The flrst Jury case Of the term was
.begun Friday forenoon, 'auH having
been brought by Clifton and Phillip
EC. Humphreys, both of Madison
against Ch4fles n. Oliver & Son, Inc,
whose place af business is at West
Mills, to recover for timber land sold
to the defendants. heplaintiffs had
purchased the Ryan farm located
partly In the town OF Industry and
partly In the town of 4tarks. On this
farm was the sap berth woods upon
which there was standing rock maple,
sap house and q sap eyaporator and
some eleven hundred sap buckets.
| Shortly after the Humphreys acquired.
the property, the divers wanted the
I hxfdWood and Grating stock In the
| former sugar orchard and after some
Eta3k as to selling price, ETC., the
humphreys # seems solo, the same to
! the Oliver concern and received there
fore 500 Id money and two notes, one
Of which had been paid and the other
haa not. These were both for six
J hundred dollars each. Clifton y.
Humphreys. who is civil engineer
| told OF the negotiations OF the plr-
! chase and claimed that he had made
them an offer of two thousand dollars
for the property, estimating the
| amount Of skewer timber and Grating
! stock at three hundred cords. lie
later accepted an offer from the OIL
] yers of eighteen hundred dollars and
| witness stated that Mr.. Oliver want
ed the contract not to include the sap
| outf|t According to the testimony
two contracts were made, one inelud-
| inn the sap outfit and the other leav-
/ Ing II ont. The defense claimed a
dispute as TO what tho real trade was
/ between the Humphreys and the OIL
4 yer concern. It seems that II. >.
/ Dowd OF Boston. who was connected
I with the firm, was furnishing the
] money TO operate the skewar miil
/, which was being run by the divers,
| Mr.. Ilowd and the divers being di-
reetors. The defense claimed that
the property was represented by the
/ Humphreys az containing six hundred
| cords Of stumpage. The defense
4 claimed that about two hundred cords
were taken of from the property the
/ same being worth about three dollars
cord. II. l.. Smith employed by the
divers, testified as to the amount OF
i timber cut and Scott Rand testified
that there was little humber left ON
I the property. II. j. lDowd OF Boston,
i treasurer OF the concern claimed IN
teStifyinS that Mr.. Humphreys thol
4 there wAs only two hundred and my
4 cords on the property. but that ne nad
conveyed the idea that there was SIX
hundred cords because tho divers
8 wanted him to. Mr.. Dowd claimed
! that he knew nothing about the sap
4 bucket business until some one from
the West Mills section. who was visit
inn In Boston told him of It. nc
7 further claimed that Oliver had sasd
the ,eap buckets were thrown IN IN
! the trade and that he knew Of nothing
i having baen received from the buckets
or ,eyapofatof. Witness said he knew
nothing OF the aap outfit business nm
III he cav TIM, second draft which Ia.
|, CiV0<N uu0 odp uuSHVS ASSuA. -
Humphrey was recalled by the plain.
Ina attorney and stated that he had
never estimated the lot as contafnine
AZ hundred cords ana had never an.
thof,zed the O1ivefs 10 make any srcf
representation. Philip Humphrey
I son ofc. 4. ffumphrey. and also civil
engineer. stated that Maurice Oliver
HAD told his father that there wal
never over three hundred cords ON TIM
piece OF land in question. Mr.. Ryan
former owner 81 The property testified
about the timber III, question. Ber'
uard of Gibbs of Madison appeared FOL
the Humphreys and Currier HOLMAN
of farmington for the defendants. A
verdict was returned for the plaintif'
in the sum OF $500.
CASES SETTLED
The case Of Gordon vs Adams as
J siSned for Monday was continued and
. the case of Cahill Va Lewsen also as
. aixned s6r Monday was defaulted. 'rhs
case OF, GilOlair vs Ripley assigned fol
Tuesday wan aefauited In the sum oI
SIZE.
x,yyOpCE HEARINGS