Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-09-30
Contracting Ave
Occupies Supreme
Court Wednesday

w SIneSua! morning IAO cases
were opened in supreme court which
were tried together. the first was A.
;. burke OF Shawmut, represented by
w. Folsom Merrill OF Skowhegan and
county attorney Harold +. Weeks OF
Fairfield, vs.. Frank Langlois of
Shawmut, represented by attorneys,
T. Harold Dubord and y. A Mar
cou OF Nateryille. in which Mr..
burke sued to recover pay for work
done and material furnished in re-
modelling and repairing a building
or Langlois in Shawmut village. The
amount of suit was $4,000 and the
date OF writ was December "a. 1925.
The amount Of real indebtedness
claimed by the plaintiff owned by
Langlois was Sl,57725. The plaintiff
claimed that he lived up to the con-
tract entered into by him and Lang
lois on October /, 1924, except in in
stances where he was prevented by
Mr.. Langlois. The defense claimed
mat Mr.. Burke had not lived up to
the contract of October /, and so re-
fused to pay and claim contract void.
In the second case the plaintiff, Mr..
Langlois, claimed that he was dam
aged to the amount OF $4,000 because
or Mr.. Burke's failure to i've I'D to
said contract and brought suit in the
sum or $4,000 to recover damages
Mr.. Dubord in the statement of the
position of the plaintiff in the sec
ond case mentioned II reasons where
the contract was lived up to by Mr..
Burke. LIST, that cement wall was
not made in workman like manner
and of good MATERIAL; End, that Gem
ent was not inches but only as or
"a of an inch and not smooth: Bird.
that building was not raised to the
height specified of s feet but only I
feet and inches: 4th, that the post
on which building was placed were
not properly set; 9TH. that all dig
glng and grading was not done; 9Th,
that the chimney was not properly
built; 18th, that two coats of paint
was not put on as per contract; Sth,
that carpentry work was not done in
workman manner: 9th, that
shelves were put up with small
screws and one fell and let groceries
to the floor causing much damage;
10Th, that because of building not
lacked up to certain height water
came in and groceries were spoiled:
.1lth. that because of water on floor
dampness caused groceries to spoil
ana this was not known to Mr.. Lang
lois and he sold them and by so do
ing lost trade; 18th, office not made
OF material nor manner of work as
per contract; 18th, glass not placed;
14th, piazza not made as contract:
10. no thresholds under doors, which
caused damage; 10th, windows not
OF glass as per contract; 18th, only
three shelves placed where three
should have been and that in all
these IL instances where contract was
as the plaintiffs claims broker that
damage resulted. Mr.. Merrill opened
the case and said that they had a
long line of witnesses to prove that
Mr.. Burke had lived up to his con-
tract except where Mr.. Langlois OBJ
Jecte1 and changed plans or prevents
ed. Thirteen witnesses were called
by Mr.. Merrill for the plaintiff in one
case, and defense in the other, IL
were present and We're sworn. The
first to testify was Mr. Burke, who
In his testimony related the incidents
OF the case as already told by Mr..