The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1923-09-27

and that Mr.. Jones had said that she
could have all the goods she wanted
and that George would pay for them.
| Defense further claimed that she had
sent her husband and children to the
store and defendant did not know
the goods were being charged to her.
The defense claimed that no express
arrangements had been made for
credit to be extended to her. Cover
& Shumway and C. E. Games, attor-
neys for the plaintiff, Merrill & Mer-
rill for the defense.
MESEREAU vs. FARNHAM
The second civil case of the term
was that of Thomas Mersereau VS.
Ellery S. Farnham and Alice G.
Farnham, husband and wife. These
were two separate cases but were
tried together with Butler & Butler
| for the plaintiff and Cover & Shum-
way for the defense. Mr.. Mersereau
lives in Skowhegan and Mr.. and Mrs.
Farnhama in Bradford, formerly OF
| Skowhegan. The two actions grew
out of the same business transaction
between the parties. Mrs.. Farnham
was holder of property titles and her
husband transacted the business. The
plaintiff claimed that certain repre-
sensations of property bought from
| the Farnhams were not true and that
he did not receive what he paid for.
The purchase, it was alleged, includ-
| ed horses that were supposed to be
in good condition, which did not prove
so and also that Mr.. Mersereau sup
posed he purchased disc harrow and
horse hoe which proved to be the
property of George e. Washburn. He
paid $500 for the property. He
| further claimed that the purchase in
cluded an express wagon which was
later taken away by Mr.. Farnham.
| Mr. and Mrs. Farnham came to Show
! hogan some two or three years before
| the transaction and purchased from
| George e. Washburn the Eaton farm
in Skowhegan.
Mr.. Mersereau, who purchased the
property from the Farnhams, former
| ly lived in New Brunswick, where
he was farmer and lumberman. He
| came here to purchase farm and
through Clyde H. Smith of the Strout
Farm Agency and L. G. Trafton, then
connected with the agency, purchased
the Farnham property. Considerable
testimony was introduced about the
horses on the farm, Ralph Reed, a
blacksmith, stating that he had shod
a heavy pair of horses for Mr.. Mer-
sereau and had found them lame.
George E. Washburn of NorridgewOck
the former owner of the property,
told of selling the farm and nachin-
cry to Mr.. Farnham, claiming some
of the same which he said he had
loaned to Mr.. Farnham. This in
cluded the disc harrow and horse hoe
which was involved in the dispute.
The actual defense was that Mr..
Farnham never made any false repre-
sensations in regard to the property
sold, that the property conveyance
was just as he said, that Mr.. Mer-
sereau was asked to look at the pro-
perty and said that he didn't care to
look at the property and didn't
look at it. Mr.. Farnham returned
from Skowhegan with large load of
fertilizer and found Mr.. Mesereau and
the real estate agent at the place.
Mr.. Mersereau had gone over the
fields on the farm and wished to en-
ter into an agreement to close the
deal that day. The defense claimed
that he asked Mr.. Mersereau IL he
didn't want to go over the buildings
to see the things on the place and
that Mr. Mersereau had replied, that
he did not as it was the land he was
looking for. The defense claimed
that certain articles had been point
ed out as belonging to Mr.. Farnham
and that Mr.. Mesereau was present
and saw the cows MIXED, before the
deeds and mortgages were executed.
1t was further claimed that both Mr..
Farnham and Mr.. Mesereau wents to
the Strout Farm Agency office and at
that time Mr.. Mesereau said he was
dissatisfied with some of the farm ma
chinery and that in order to close up
the deal Mr.. Farnham agreed to
throw in a iigger wagon, providing
Mersereau would pay an additional
$4,000 and it was further claimed that
Mersereau stated that he was well
satisfied with the trade. The de-
tense alleged that no fake represen-
tations were made, but that certain
representations were made and that
Mr.. Mersereau refused to examine
that which was being sold. Mr..
Farnham, who was the first witness,
called for the defense, Is at present
engaged in farming at Bradford. Two
verdicts were returned, one of $46.31
in the suit against Mrs. Farnham and
the other S43.16 in the case against
Mr.. Farnham.
THIRTY INDICTMENTS RETURNED
Thirty indictments were returned
by the grand jury of which the fol-
lowing are made public:
State VS. Arnold Barry, larceny.
State VS. Joseph Campeau, common
seller.
State vs. Roland Cleveland, enticing
to house of Ill fame.
State vs. Roland Cleveland, forni-
| cation.
State VS. Thomas f. Dobson, lar
ceny from person.
State VS. Henry Dorrity, felonious
assault.
State Va Henry Dorrity.
State vs. Joseph Ellis, arson.
State vs. Leonard Grant, larceny.