The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1924-04-17

but claimed that that dad not cnange
her contract, which she had signed. 1t
was contended by the plaintiffs at
torney that the tombstone was not n
part of the burial expenses, hence
was not contract created by law TO
! be paid by the estate as were the
burial services. Judge Sturgis re-
fused the non-suit and Attorney Cool
idge moved that verdict be directed
for the plaintiff in the sum of $500
and interest from May 1, 1923, which
amounted to s34.0S, which was ac-
cordingly done by the presiding JUS
tice.
BUKER VS. BRAsIER
The next case taken up was that of
Albion f. Buker of Hartland against
o. e. Brasier of Hartland, and VIM.
Folsom Merrill for Mr. Brasier and
Geo. w. Cover for Mr.. Buker. This
was promissory note matter, Mr.
Brasier having give a note to E. e.
j Davis of Palmyra in part payment for
a pair of horses and later Mr.. Davis
transferred the note to Mr.. Buker
+ The face of The note was offered by
Mr.. Cover for Mr.. Buker. as testimony
/ for the plaintiff. Interest on the note
was at seven per cent and a bill of
i sale of the horses were given as Sc
curity. Mr. BraZier took the stand
/ in his own defense and told of the
purchase of The horses from Davis,
he giving his note, one horse, which
/ he valued at S100, and a bill Of sale
/ for security Witness said he later
/ turned the horses back to Mr. Davis
/ I 81. l., FtY,fr
that the note had come into Mr.. Bulk
ers possession, and stated that Mr..
Buker said that he and Davis had
i talked the matter over and If he
would turn the horses back to Davis,
he would look to Davis for his pay.
Mr.. Brazier said that he did so and
later learned that the horses were in
i the possession OF someone else. Wit
ness said that he went with the Of
j floers to get the horses and in order
to identify them at Mr.. Buker's re-
quest, and took them back to Mr..
Baker. Brasier said that Buker did
not say anything to him about paying
the note until suit was brought in
September,s 1921, although he ha
seen Mr.. Buker nearly every day. or
every two or three days. After the
suit was brought, Mr.. ABrazier said
he went to the Buker store the same
day, and asked him what he meant
and Buker told him he wanted his
money Witness said Mr.. Buker said
he had made mistake, but hadn't
spoken to him since. He claimed
that when the horses came into Mr..
Buker's possession they were in good
condition and We're worth about $500.
Under cross examination BraZier
denied that Davis had said anything
against taking the horses back and
denied that Buker had told him he
would not release him from paying
the note. Brazier admitted that he
took the horses and started for the
woods with them after he had been
with the officers to bring them back
to Buker and that they were repleyi-
ed Under direct examination Braz-
Ter said that Buker asked him to put
them in his (Brasier's) stable after
he had returned them to him, and
fhat he took them away at Buker
request. Witness said that it was
understood that the horses were TO be
repleved and that Buker told him to
move them as quickly as he could. 1t
appeared from the testimony that
Brazier took the horses and started
for Kingsbury To work in the woods;
that Brazer was stopped in Brighton
by a deputy over the telephone and
that Brazier called up Buker, and the
latter told him to move on with them.
Brazier said he took the horses to
Kingsbury at Mr.. Buker's request,
and that he never had dealings with
them as his own horses.
The trial was stopped at this point
and the jurors were excused until
100 Monday afternoon Divorce
cases were heard during the rest of
the forenoon session by Judge Sturgis
This included the case of Dora futile
VS. Peter futile, who testified that her
husband had not contributed to the
support of her children and a neigh
Dor testified that she had fed her,
when Mrs. futile had said she was
hungry, also that Mrs. futile had had
to cut her own wood. Testimony
was also introduced to show that
futile was lazy and addicted to the
use of liquor. Mr.. futile was rear
ed at West Athens, according to Mrs.
futile.
ASSIGNED CASES NOT TO BE
TRIED
The following cases assigned for
trial at this term of court have been
settled otherwise: Wheeler VS. Nick
erson, referred; Austin VS. Prudential
Health and Accident Insurance Co.,
Aplt., reported to law court; Chase VS.
Brown defaulted by agreement;
Smith VS. Brown, judgment for pro-
perty; Osgood VS. Schillinger -four
cases) neither party, no further ac-
ton; Goodridge complt VS. Levensel-
Ter dismissed; Mclaughlin VS. Davis.
/, defaulted by agreement; Crossman VS.
Adkins, defaulted, Savoy VS. Kitchen,
= defauted by agreement; Porter ct ais
VS. Hilton. continued; Smell VS. Austin,
continued. In the cases of Harlow
VS. Corvette, the three cases of State
rs Dayon ct ais. Consolidated Rem
dering Co. VS. Reynolds; Held Col'r.
VS. Paquette and Tr., there will be no
trials. On the unassigned list the
} case of Gordon Cole VS. Tompkins the