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

road station and testified he heard the
collision as the automobile hit his car
and that the other auto kept going.
Witness said that he stopped within
two feet of the collision and found
that his radiator, left front wheel and
mud guard and axle were damaged.
The wheel alone cost him $50 for re-
pairs. Witness said that Reilly told
him that he fRellly) had the right of
way and that he lQuimby) had told
Reilly that If he was in the wrong
he would pay. He thought Reilly was
going 20 miles an hour from the force
of the collision, he stated. Mr.. Roun-
dy of Benton was riding in the Quinn
by car at the time and said he didn't
know anything about the approach
ing car until he was hit Mr.. Quimby
had several other witnesses.
A verdict in the case of Reilly vs
Quimby was returned for the plaintiff
in the sum of $71.37 and in the case of
Quimby VS. ReiIley the verdict was
for the defendant.
MERRILL VS. HAGOPIAN
The case of Charles Merrill of An
son VS. Harry Hagopian of Madison
was taken up Tuesday morning with
Bernard Gibbs of Madison as attorney
for the plaintiff and County Attorney
James II. Thorne as attorney for the
defendant. This was an action brot
by Mr.. Merrill to recover on an ae-
count annexed, amounting to $355.77,
items of a stock held by Mr.. Merrill
in his shop at Arson Mr.. Merrill
bought the iron and wood working
shop formerly owned by A. r. Moore
of Madison and made loan of Ruel
Norton, a neighbor at the time of the
purchase. A real estate mortgage
was given to secure the note turned
over by Mr.. Merrill to Mr.. Norton.
A fire in July, 1922 damaged the stock
and machinery and later the insur-
ance was adjusted after a minute ex-
animation. At about the time the in
surance was adjusted Merrill decided
to sell out, practically everything ex
| cept the machinery and tools to Hago
plan. This alleged sale occurred dur
/ ing the summer of 1922 and accord
/ ing to the plaintiff, Mr.. Merrill and
! Mr.. Hagopian were to ascertain the
/ wholesale prices of the stock from ca
talogues and invoices and Hagopian
was to pay one half of the wholesale
value. Merrill went over the whole
stock and made a complete list. He
claimed that Hagopian owed him about
$3.50 and asked Hagopian TO pay. In
the meantime Mr.. Norton who made
the loan to Mr.. Merrill remained un-
paid and both he and Merrill were
i,to IN, Ia
investigated and talked with Merrill
about it. Merrill went to Hagopian
and told of the circumstances of the
purchase. 1t was finally decided, it
seems, that the money be paid by
Hagopian to Norton to be applied on
his debt and Norton went to Hagopian
with the result that Hagopian promis-
ed to pay, it is claimed. In the
meantime the insurance was adjusted
and Norton's debt was paid. Merrill
came out of the woods, where he was
employed and went to see Hagopian
and the defense claimed that he
was there informed that Judge Small
was going to pay the bill. The three
had an extended conversation and
! Hagopian then said it was alleged,
ludl uC idu OuiY pui pai /
of the goods. Mr.. Merrill employed
counsel and suit was brought De-
cember 22nd. The defense claimed
that the plaintiffs shop was burned
down and after the insurance adjust
ment Mr. Hagopian contracted to buy
certain pieces of iron and steel and a
few boxes of bolts at one-half the
wholesale price. After making the
contract Hagopian went to the shop
for the goods purchased and claims
that his team was loaded with scrap
iron, wooden wheel hubs and other
wooden stock, including patterns
which were damaged by the fire. The
plaintiff claimed to have refused to
receive them and to have had them
stored, but did not deny bill of $35
for 400 pounds of iron and steel which
he is willing to pay, The defense
further alleged that he never made
any agreement to take the wood sup
plies as he does not use them in his
business, and hence contends that he
should not pay for the wooden stock
The plaintiff claimed that at the time
of the purchase Hagopian was in the
woodworking business.