Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-09-26


ing for nurse at the Somerset hos
pital, went to Bangor, Tuesday
morning. where she will pass a few
days vacation visiting with her sis
ter.
Supreme Court
News for Tuesday
Supreme court convened at $50 Tues
day morning with Judge Philbrook on
the bench, and the first jury. before
whom the cases of William D. Reilly
of Pittsheld VS.. Charles Quimby of
Benton and Charles Quimby VS.. Will
liam D. Reilly had been tried the aft
ernoon before, went to their room for
consideration of the case. In his
charge to the judy concerning this case
Judge Philbrook gave a most explicit
explanation Of cases where negligence
is the action. and said the general rule
is such cases was that the plaintiff
must prove that he is not at faul as
we'll as to prove that the defendant is
at fault. Judge Philbrook defined neg
ligence in legal terms as being the
failure to exercise due and ordinary
care. and further defined due and Or
binary care. saying that due care is
that degree, measure and kind of care
which the situation has right to de-
mand, and gave ILLUSTRATION of a man
throwing a shovel off a barn in the
country farm where no one was pres
ent as compared with throwing
shovel off a building on one of the
busy streets in town where women
with baby carriages and school chill
dren and others were continually pass
~ hot cit
tions require different degree of care,
and so the care exercised depends upon
the conditions at the place and time
it is exercised. Judge Philbrook con-
sidered both cases and made the law
very plain as regarded the issues as
presented by the two attorneys, who
were Attorney Harry n. Coolidge for
! Mr.. Reilly and Attorney Mark ]. Bart
lett for Mr.. Quimby. The jury was
out two hours and fifty-five minutes.
when it returned in the case of Reilly
VS.. Quimby verdict for the plaintiff
in the sum of s71.37, and in the case
of Quimhy VS.. Reilly verdict for the
defendant.
The cases assigned for this week
were gone over by Judge Philbrook and
| the various attorneys and the follow
| ing were disposed of as follows: No.
! 201, George F. Goodspeed. represented
! by Cover and Shumway. VS.. Great
Northern Paper Co., represented by
Louis c. Stearns, and No. coz. George
f. Goodspeed and Lynn L. Adams
| (Gower and Shumway) VS.. Great
Northern Paper Co (Stearns), neither
party. no further action: Nos. SAL and
J 542. both of which are The American
! Agricultural Co. We. Nelson H. Her
rick, the company being represented by
| Cover and Shamway and Herrick by
| Anderson. were stricken from the trial
| list; 445. Oscar Lockwood and B. b.
Smith &C. A. Blackington) vs.. Albert
w. Kidder (McGillicuddy), defaulted
| by agreement: No. $50. George G. Hill
man (Butler and Butler) vs.. Mathew
Carpenter and L. ". Carpenter (Shaw
and Cowan), defaulted: No. 534. John
F. Hill Co. &C. A. Blackington) VS.. G.
| g. Paulmer and T. B. Tague, Tr
| (Eames). defaulted: No. 546 c. E. Nor
cross (Haley) VS.. Emma Herrick and
| y. H. Herrick (Anderson), defaulted
+. without cost.
| Cases in the new entries list No. 565
! Lev! c. Adams Gibbs VS.. Ressiter
| r. Smell and Manner Henry, and No
| ZAP. Ressiter r. Smell and Levi c.
| Adams, Attorney Judge Charles O.
Small representing Smell, were taken
! from the trial list before jury and
placed on list for trial before the court;
! cases No. 759. The American Agricul-
J tural Chemical Co (Gower and Shum-
way) VS.. Nelson H Herrick, and No.
| $50. The American Agricultural Chem
ical Co. (Gower and Shumway) VS..
Nelson Fl. Herrick and Emma S. Her
rick. were taken from the trial list;
the case of No. 7S4. f. l.. Mckechnie
| (Gibbs) VS.. Edd Snow. Aplt. (SmalD.
was taken from the trial list before
jury and placed on trial before the
court.
The first case to come up for trial at
the Tuesday morning session before
jury was the case of Charles Merrill
of Arson. who was represented by At
torney Bernard Gibbs of Madison. VS..
Harry Haeopan of Madison. who was
! REPRESENTED by Attorney Jamse II.
Thorne Of North Arson. The case. was
opened by Attorney Gibbs and was
heard before the first jury, of which
! Elmer F.. Greenwood of Skowhegan is
the foreman. The suit was to recover
S305.17. the amount of purchased goods
from Mr.. Merrill by Harry Hagopian.
The writ was dated on December %.
1922. and there was an account an
nexed.
The plaintiff claimed that Mr.. Mer-
rill sold to Harry Hagopian in Au-
gust 1922 certain articles which were
all of the material used in his bust
ness and included all in his shop and
that Hagopians' son came to the
Merrill shop and got the goods, the
sale having been made after an in
surance had been adjusted after a
fire at the Merrill shop. The defense
hof Mr. Mnrri11 W.T. hn
teams of Hagopian which were driv-
en- by Hagopian's son, things which
were not included in the sale and
which were useless and the defense
in It's cross examination exhibited
many articles which they showed to
Merrill and which they claimed were
useless only one a whip socket was
admitted to be Of no value by Mr..
Merrill. The price to be apid was
agreed by both Merrill and Hagopian
to be one-half the wholesale price at
the time of the sale. Ruel Norton
held mortgage on the Merrill real
, estate. Mr.. Hagopian was to have
paid cash for the goods as per state
ment of Mr.. Merrill but when he was
asked for the money did not pay but
said he would pay 800. Both Norton
and Merrill went to Hagopian for the
money and later Mr.. Merrill and Mr..
Hagopian met at the Office of Judge
Charles o. Small and at that meet
ing 1t was the first time that Mr..
Merrill learned that Hagopian was
dissatisfied and did not mean to pay
and Mr.. Merrill stated that at that
time Judge Small adviced Hagopian
to pay and told Merrill that he Judge
Small could not do any thing with
Hagopian and told Merrill that he
would not blame him if he entered a
suit against Hagopian.
The witnesses for the plaintiff we're
Charles H. Merrill, Frank Burke,
Lester Merrill, Ruel B. Norton, John