Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-09-30


that Mr.. Burke did not begin the
work until late, in regard TO this Mr.
Burke stated that Mr.. Langlois WISH
ed the work to wait until the close
of automobile season as he could not
operate the store while work was go
ing on and that labor would pc
cheaper In cold weather, another
contention was that the wall was put
in in very cold weather and that the
cement pealed to this Mr.. Burke salo
1t was very cold and that he told Mr..
Langloiss that 1t was too cold TO run
cement but that Langlois said TO go
ahead and he would take his cnance.
The cement was run but did peal az
Mr.. Burke said 1t would although the
frame was left on for a week when
the usual time for cement to set III
warm weather Is "a hours.
The testimony of Mr.. Burke was
continued in the afternoon in which
he said that according to the con.
tract he was to use all available OLD
lumber: that he did the work In
the office as per contract; that he re-
placed broken panes Of glass with
new glass; built piazza and properly
supported 1t as per contract ana
satisfactory to Mr.. Langlots and put
In windows but could not tell how
many shelves he put into the store.
He said he used best gravel and
the mixture was g to /. He said
he did the work and furnished ma
terials not called for in the contract
and gave an itemized account OF
the same. which amounted to $77.25.
Mr.. Burke said that Langlois was
satisfied the height to which the
building was lacked up. The three
posts in controversy, Mr.. Burke said.
were set one day when he was away
and were set under the direction or
MIR. Langlois and added that If the
posts were not properly set Langlois
was to blame.
Mr.. Burke said he had demanded
payment a number of times from
Mr.. Langlois and he refused to set
tie. Mr.. Burke's direct cross-exam-
nation lasted until recess.
The second witness was Robert
Burke, a son of the plaintiff. He
said he typewrote the contract but
did not see them sign 1t but he said
that considerable work was done
getting ready before the contract
was signed. He heard his father
and Langlois talking about running
the foundation and recalled that his
father told Langlois that 1t was pref
ty cold to run cement but Langlois
said he thought it would be all right.
Young said Langlois did not want
the work done earlier because II
had catered TO auto traffic.
The third witness was Edward j.
Burke. another son of the plaintiff
who worked with his father. He
said his father was away the day
the posts were set and on that day
Ianglois directed the work. He re-
Il - nd
, lois talking about lacking the build
ing up and heard Cyr say that it
was going up two feet but Langlois
! said it was high enough and would
not take so much heat SO the build
ing was just levelled up.
The fourth witness was Hector
Cyr of Waterville. who is a con-
tractor and came from Lisbon Falls,
where he Is working on bridge.
He said he was engaged by Burke
to jack up the building and run
the cement. He gave the same pro-
portion OF mixture as Burke but said
he did not consider the gravel extra
good and stated that there were 8
or yards of rock put into the wall.
The fifth witness was Elwell Chase.
He said he went to see Burke the
, morning the cement was run to see
If they were going to run it as he
was going to haul water with his
horse and he recalled that Burke said
il was too cold to run the cement
and that Langlois said to run it.
The sixth witness was Samuel
Smith of Fairfield, a mason. He
worked there in the spring for Lang
lois and helped patch the places
where the walls had peeled. He
worked two days at $3.30 and did
good job and said that the wall was
all right except where he had work.
ed and was cracked on the back side.
The seventh witness was Henry
Pomeroy He said he worked there
a year ago last April. found the wall
all right except for places where 1t
had peeled and one crack in the back.
He worked two days at $500 per day.
The eighth witness was Mr.. Smith
who went to do the grading for
Burke which he said was job which
would take two men about two days.
The ninth witness Otto Totman.
, hardware dealer, went TO estimate the
paint job and was told by Langlois
that he lad wasted his time. that
Burke had nothing to do with it.
The tenth witness Willie Morisette
worked there the fall of 1924 for Mr..
Burke. He said he was a carpenter in
the crew when the posts were set,
said Burke was away that day and
Langlois told them what to DO and
he heard Langlois stop Cyr from
lacking up the building and told him
that ii was high enough.
The 11th witness was Albert Rod
erick OF Fairfield who spoke
through an interpreter. F. L. Try.
His testimony had to do with the
setting of the posts and corroborated
the testimony of previous witnesses.
The 18th witness was Charles Run
nells of Fairfield who worked for
Langlois in February and March of
the following spring. He said that
there was not proper foundation I'M
der the posts. He said that Lang
lois told him that they got out of
bookings and as he didn't want to be
a hog he told them the building was
high enough.
The last witness was Albert Gar
rity, whose testimony was similar to
those previous. This completed the
plaintiffs testimony and the case
| which occupied the entire day We'd
nesday will be resumed with the
opening of court Thursday morning
3. p. w. Notes
Members of the Business and Pro-
| fessional 'Women's Club gathered at
the club rooms for regular business
session Tuesday evening Because of