Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-05-28
SUPERIOR COURT

court came In at 10 o'clock this
morning. The jurors reported and
We're sworn in. Several We're excus-
ed for various reasons.
Traverse Jurors
Barker, Edward E., Waterville:
Blake. William A, Oakland; Brown
H. s., Waterville; Russell, Forrest
l., Gardiner: Cannon, George L., Wa
terville. excused; Collins, Archie
Chelsea; Gerald, Fred, Clinton; Hay
den, Marion, Augusta; Kimball. w
n, Winthrop, excused; Lamb, AL.
bert E., Augusta, excused; Lambert
Edward T., Augusta; Libby, c. N.
Wayne; Masse, L. j., Vassalboro;
Morse. Charles, Waterville; Morri'
son, Carrie, China: Niles. William H.
Hallowell; Palmer, L. c., Unity
Plantation; Philbrick, Clarence l..
Augusta, excused; Pooler, Frank G.
Winslow; Reed, Writ Randolph;
Walter G., Readfield, excused
Spencer, Melvin, Gardiner.
The first case for the jury was No
284, Roland L. Gordan of Augusta
against Samuel Freeman of Water
vile. Robert A. Cony represented the
plaintiff and Arthur Crafty the de-
PENDANT.
This was an action of deceit in
the purchase and sale Of a wrist
watch. The price paid was $40
Plaintiff claimed that defendant sold
|, him the watch as real watch" and
all right; that he took it on those
representations, gave it to his daugh-
ter, and that it kept perfect time for
three weeks, then two or three times
was taken back for repairs; that il
would keep time only a short time af-
ter being repaired, and finally suit
was brought.
Defendant stated that the watch
was sold as a quality watch, was OF
delicate construction, a very small
Swiss wrist watch; that when
brought back the first time there was
lint in it, and there was pressure
against the balance wheel. and that
it showed hard usage. This first
time defendant stated the watch was
reconditioned and no charge was
made, and no charge was made a,
the second time the watch came back
for repairs. The watch was purchas-
ed In 1922 in the month of December
The last time it was brought in for
repairs il was taken to the Augusta
store of defendant, and after being
cleaned and put into condition it was
not called for for about a year.
Verdict for defendant.
The next case for the jury was No
224. Blanche NJ. Pierce against
Nathan Hillson, ct al. A. r. Rogers
appeared for plaintiff and Perkins &
Weeks for defendant.
This is an action of tort, and arose
over distractions to the entrance OF
plaintiffs lodging house on Main
street, Waterville, known as City
Hotel. Damages were asked in the
sum Of $1,000. Mrs. Pierce testified
that in July, 1924. the occupants of
the store under her lodging house,
wished to change the stairway. and
that they agreed to pay her $50 for
the inconvenience to her, and that
they claimed the work would take
only from seven to ten days. She
stated further that the work started
July II, and was not completed until
September IL.
Plaintiff stated she was injured in
her business in that her roomers left
her, as the stairway was INSTRUCTED
so that they could not get up and
down without soiling their clothes.
Charles E. HoXie, the contractor
on the work. was on the stand for
defendant at the time Of adjourn
ment. He heard all the conversation
between the parties and stated that
there was no time set as to the length
of time it would take to do the work,
and that such a change could not be
made in the time claimed by plain
tiff. He explained the work done on
the stairway from a chalk on the
board. His testimony was not con-
cluded at adjournment.