Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1924-02-05
Plaintiff Rendered
Verdict in Hubbard
Goodwin Case

The Monday morning session OF
the Supreme court opened at s.SO anu
the second jury was called to hear
the case for trial at that time. Three
members of this jury had been ex-
cused and the following supernu-
melaries were called to take their
places: J. Wilson Boston. Canaan;
John H. Burwood. Madison and
George Conforth. Madison. The case
was that of Lamson, Hubbard COM
pany of Boston VS.. l.. II. Goodwin,
alias Lucian H. Goodwin and Pitts
| field National Bank Tr.. of Pittsfield.
Attorney Harry n. Coolidge repres-
ented the defense and the plaintiff
was represented by Attorney Thomas
| n. Weeks of Waterville of the firm
! of Perkins and Weeks.
The case was opened by Attorney
Weeks and outlined as follows: On
March II, 1928. Mr.. Clarence A.
| Nichols Of Somerviile. Mass, a
| salesman for the hanson, Hubbard
| Company of Boston. called at the
| Goodwin store in Pittsfield and took
| an order for hats and caps, from Mr..
! Goodwin at the value of S222.75 for
| hats and about $4S.00 for caps. The
! defense claimed that Mr.. Nichols
gave the right to cancel the order for
/ the caps if for any reason he wished
! to do so up to the date of shipment
| which was August 18th. and that
| Mr.. Goodwin bought caps elsewhere
! and wrote at two different times and
| cancelled the cap order. The caps
| and hats We're shipped to Mr.. Good
win from the company by express
; and Mr.. Goodwin refused to receive
| them from the express office at
| Pittsfield He did not cancel the
| hats ordered but as they were packed
| together with the caps he refused to
| receive either the caps or the hats.
| Mr.. Nichols the first and only wit
i ness for the plaintiff stated that there
| was no agreement on his part with
| Mr.. Goodwin that he could cancel the
order for the caps and that they
were manufactured especially for Mr..
| Goodwin with his firm name in them.
Mr.. Goodwin. the only witness for
| the defense, stated that the salesman
! sold them to him with the under
standing and agreement that he
| could cancel the order any time up
to the date of shipment. Mr. Cool
| idge made his argument Monday
| forenoon and at the afternoon ses-
sion Attorney Weeks gave his argu-
| ment and the judge charged the
| jury.
The jury in the case Of Lamson &
Hubbard Co. Of Boston VS.. l.. ii.
Goodwin .and trustees of Pitsfield
rendered a verdict for the plaintiff
in the sum of $231.S5.
| The case OF State VS.. A. S. Yates
| of Lowelltown Plantation. Franklin
| county. who was indicted at the Jan
uary term of the supreme court of
! Somerset county by the grand jury
on charge of having Illegal posses
sion Of part Of moose in closed
| time in said plantation came before
| the court Monday afternoon. The
State was represented by County At
torney James II. Thorne Of North An
son and the respondent by William +.
| Brown of Madison. Considerable
time was taken in arguing ire case
before Judge Deasy and quotations
! We're read from Section "a. Chapt So
| of the Revised States by both attor-
| neys. Judge Deasy finally ruled to
F, sustain motion made by Mr.. Brown
and ruled the indictment quashed.