Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1925-04-14
SUPREME COURT

The following disposition was
made of cases on Mondays trial list
at the supreme court. The case of
Nicholas Siorillo, alias Nicholas Sc
rillo, represented by Merrill! 6 Mer-
rill. VS. John Hamilton and John
Lamb, Trs., represented by Pattan-
gall, Locke & Perkins of Augusta,
was defaulted. The case of Dud-
ley B. Whitney, represented by Gross
by & Crosby, VS. Ernest f. Reed,
represented by j. =. Williams, were
continued. The case of Levi Mar
tin. represented by Thorne. VS.. Percy
j. Ridiau, represented by w. b.
Brown, was also continued. The
case of Harry f. Wheeler represent
ed by Butler q Butler, VS.. Clark +.
Hanson and SkowL~gan Trust Com
pany. IT,, represented by Merrill &
Merrill, was defaulted. The case of
Addie f. Bryant. represented by
Coolidge, VS.. Sanford l.. Fogg, Adm.
c. T. A, of the estate of Cyrus w.
Foster, represented by Mclean,
Fogg & Southland, was continued fl
nally. The cases of Archie G.. Rod
erick and Lionel G.. Trafton, repre-
scented by Cover &, Shumway, VS..
Charlotte {. Cullen, represented byI
Benedict +. Maher of Augusta. and
Spec; and the case of Louville Whit
ten, represented by Cover & Shum-
way, VS.. Maine Container Co, repre-
scented by Weeks, were marked for|
trial.
Gould VS.. Brooks
Shortly before noon Monday the
case OF r. f. Gould of Anson, rep
resented by Butler & Butler, A. X.
Butler acting. VS.. Dennis Brooks of
Arson, represented by Attorney H.
j. Thorne of Madison, in which ac-i
ton is brought to recover the pay
ment for a bill of merchandise pur-
chased by Mrs. Brooks at the gen.
eral store of Mr.. Gould in Arson,
amounting to $30376, was opened.
The plaintiff claimed that Gould fur
nished and delivered these goods to
Mrs. Brooks and that Mr.. Brooks
had never instructed Mr. Gould not
to extend credit to his wife: that the
goods were sold at the regular price
and that Gould should have his pay
for them.
The defense claimed that Mr..
Brooks was not liable as he never
entered into a contract with Mr..
Gould; but two years ago Mr.. Brooks
settled small account at the Gould
store and that at that time he in
structed Mr.. Gould not to trust Mrs.
Brooks, and that he also told his
wife that she was not to trade at
the Gould store: Mrs. Brooks traded
at other stores where she paid cash;
that the most of the articles in the
account were not necessities for the
family and the articles sold especial
ly in a bill of $2S7.S0 to Mrs. Brooks
on January fifth were not necessi-
ties and If they were the price
charged was excessive: and that on
January s Mrs. Brooks separated
from her husband and that Mr..
Gould knew that Mrs. Brooks was
about to leave Mr.. Brooks.
The case was heard before the
first jury of which James Spence of
Madison, foreman and HaZen Taylor
of Arson were excused, and Milton
Gleason Of Canaan and Mrs. Belle S.
Jewett of Skowhegan, supernumer-
aries, were called to fill their places.
The witnesses for the plaintiff were:
Ralph f. Gould and Miss Ruth
Smith, saleslady in Goud's store, and
Mrs. Katherine Westman, resident of
the Brooks house.
MI. Gould stated In his testimony
that Mrs. Brooks was not properly
clothed for the winter weather. She
apparently needed the things she
bought and that she was going to
Portland as he understood, to enter
a hospital for treatment, Itemized
bills were presented and compared
with the slips of Mr.. Gould's slip
system. 1t was stated that Mr..
Brooks was able to pay for these
goods.
Witnesses for the defense were
Dennis Brooks, and his nephew and
wife, Mr.. and Mrs. James Brooks.
Mr.. Brooks, in his testimony, stated
that he did tell Mr.. Gould not to
give credit to his wife, that he pro-
vided well for his wife and children.
Mr.. and Mrs. James Brooks, in testi-
flying, stated that their uncle did
provide we'll for his family as one
in his position could do. They told
of large amount of foodstuffs
which he had on hand when his wife
left him taking her children with
her. After the testimony was in, At