Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-01-22
VERDICT FOR Defendant IN CASE AGAINST
YOUNG LEWISTON ATTORNEY ON ALLEGED
BREACH OF AGREEMEN 7 TO FURNISH BOND


A verdict for the defendant was re-
turned Thursday afternoon by the
jury at the Kennebec County Super
ior Court in the case of the Spring
Brook Ice Co., of Waterville against
Harrison M. Isaacson Of Lewiston.
The plaintiff company claimed the
sum of 1887, which they declared to
be the value to them of bond alleg-
ed to have been promised them by the
defendant on condition that they
withdraw an attachment upon the
furnishings of the Colby Lunch of
Waterville. 1t was further alleged
that the plaintiff did withdraw the
not live up to his part of the agree
ment. Attorneys Mark J. Bartlett and
Carl Blackington appeared for the
plaintiff company, and Attorney B. F..
Maher for the defendant.
Attachment for Debt
Attorney Carl Blackington of Wat
erville, the first witness for the plain
tiff, testified that on April l, 1925 he
was attorney for the Spring Brook
Ice Co.. with full authority and that
in carrying out the wishes Of his
employer, he caused an attachment to
be laid upon the property of the
Colby Lunch. Inc, of Waterville. This
attachment was made out in his office
in the early afternoon and was served
soon thereafter by Deputy Sheriff
Joseph Roderick, who installed Will
liam H. Digman as Keeper"
The same afternoon according to
the testimony, Harrison M. Isaacson
of Lewiston, an attorney, called to
see him and stated that he had moth
ing to do with the Colby Lunch and
did not care damn about it." but
that he represented a man named
Martin who held a mortgage on the
Colby Lunch. Isaacson told the wit
ness that he (Blackington) had no
attachment on the property as 1t was
mortgaged, upon which Blackington
declared that the things that he had
attached were not mortgaged. Isaac
son then said that he was going to
put the lunch into bankruptcy and
asked Blackington why he did not do
so. The witness replied that he did
not wont to do that and the defend
ant had said that he was interested
in getting the keeper out of the place.
To this Blackington said that he
would raise the attachment If he were
given a proper bond and Isaacson
agreed that it should be done. They
went into the outer office and Isaac
son started to make out bond, ask
ing II Blackington would take a sta
tutory bond. To this the Waterville
attorney replied that he simply want
ed bond that would guarantee the
payment of any judgement against
the Colby Lunch If it did not go into
bankruptcy. Isaacson then asked
No. lit - %
and the witness answered that he
made it rule not to have anything
to do with the making out of a bond
under such circumstances. Isaacson
then promised that he would deliver
the bond the following morning and
with that understanding they both
went to the Colby Lunch where the
keeper was relieved.
The next morning after long wait
Isaacson appeared at the office of the
witness and declared that his client
Martin would not sign the bond and
that he would not give Blackington
a bond until Martin did so. st
On cross examination the witness
admitted that much of the stuff which
had been attached was already mort
gagged with the exception of the cash
register and the cash which it con-
tanned.
Keeper On Stand
William H. Digman. who acted as
keepker after the attachment was
served said that he stayed there
during the afternoon and as he was
eating his supper both Blackington
and Isaacson came in. Blackington
told him that Isaacson had promised
him a bond in the morning and that
he (Digman) could be relieved. The
witness testified that Blackington
turned to Isaacson for confirmation
and the defendant had said. Yes"
The next morning the witness was
at the Blackington Office in company
with Mr.. Blackington and Mr.. Erwin
who is an officer of the Spring Brook
Ice Co. Isaacson came in and
Blackington asked him for the bond,
the defendant answering that his
client would not sign. Then Black
ington had said that he did not
give a damn about his client, that
Isaacson had promised him the bond
and if he did not deliver it his word
was not worth much" He had then
ordered Isaacson out of the Office.
Deputy Sheriff Joseph Roderick
testified that he had served the att
ldCllIlcHL anu ldlSL dulIlOt lLOo
Digman to leave the restaurant as
he had been notified by Blackington
that the attachment had been lifted.
Robert L. Erwin, an officer of the
Spring Brook Ice Co., testified that
he had retained Attorney Blackington
and that he had given him full au-
thority in the matter. He testified
that he was in the office on the
morning of the second of April when
Isaacson had said that his client
would not sign the bond and that
the events took place as Blackington
and Digman had testified. Mrs.
Winifred WEIGH, employed in Mr..
Blackington's office stated that Mr..
Blackington had told her to make
out the attachment. 1t was just be-
fore her noon hour and she had not
done this until after she had had
lunch. Later in the afternoon she
had heard Isaacson tell Blackington
that he would deliver the bond in the
morning.
Motions by Defendant
After motions for a non-suit and
for directed verdict, which were
brought by the defendant, had been