Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1859-11-11
Supreme Judicial Court.


in Pif. claimed title to and possession of Ger.
tam premises in Brooklin, in the occupation
of deft After the evidence was out it was
made iac and continued on report.
Wiswell for plf. Hinckley for deft
277. Amira Fisk hbl't. v. Andrew A. Fisk.
Libel for divorce--cause ill-treatment of IL
bellant. Divorce decrced and almony to
the amount Of $3.50 allowed petitioner pay
able in eight equal annual payments. House
hold furniture " be equally divided between
the parties.
Wiswell for pet. Hinckley for delft.
249. Warren Young v. Abner L. Tracy &
al. Assumpsit for smoking and boxing
about 500 boxes Of herring for deft. The
defence was that plf. burned said herring in
the process of smoking them and rendered
them OF no value-that the fish were in good
condition when delivered to plf, and evil
dence was introduced to prove these facts.
The plf. on the other hand produced testi-
inony to show that the herring were almoet
worthless when delivered to him, that they
had not been properly salted, that if burned
at all, they had been burned by salt and not
BY fire, and that they were accepted by the
deft. without any objection. Much Of the
testimony in this case was in direct conflict
Verdict for plf. $Sl,l7 amount claimed and
interest.
Wiswell for plf. Hale for deft.
William Jones Y. Michael McCabe. Tro-
yer for horse, and the questions were ~ to
the ownership Of the horse when purchased
by deft. and its value.
The horse was purchased by the def of
the father of the plf., it was content,ed
by the pH. and evidence was offered to
the same effect, that at the time Of the
sale to deft. the horse belonged 10 the plf.
and that the father had no authority to make
1 the sale.
For the defence it was contended that the
horse belonged to the father, and that he
had right to sell him. There was consid-
cradle conflicting testimony as to the value
Of the horse Verdict for plf. for $ll4,OO
damages.
Waterhouse. G. S. Peters for deft
3ll. Charles v Lord " L,bbeus Smith
his action was brought against deft. as en-
/ dorser Of a note signed by Enos Woodland and
payable at the Hancock Bank. The oues-
ton was as to the sufhciency Of notice Of
nom payment Of the note to the deft
Nonsuit ordered and continued on report.
Waterhouse l. Wiswell for plf
] 6. S. Peters for def.
81. James NJ BlaisdeN. lih'.., '. Sarah
Baisdell. Libel for divorce-cause deser.
tion. Divorce decreed.
Wiswell for libellAnt
: l2o4. Ezra D. Eatonv Newell ODER. Deft.
w'as one of committee, chosen BY the in
! ,''abi.ants OF Brooklin to obtain proposals for
ere, ting bridge in said town, and superin-
tendin. the building Of the same. Plf. own
ed a tide m, " near said bridge and for the
convenience Of he contractor drew of the
water, during part c,.f the time said bridge
was in course Of construr ton. Inns action
was brought for drawing otf said water and
for the detention of the mill in cGnse4 hence
thereof. Evidence was offered to show tina.
delft. made himself personally accountable
for said services and for the detention Of the
mill. Deft. testified that he did not make
himself accountable and introduced evidence
in Confederation.
Verdict for plf. for 1898.
llinckley for plf. Wiswell for def.
State v. Daniel Donover. Indictment for
being common seller Of intoxicating liquors.
One witness testified that he purchased about
one pint Of gin at one time, and that subse-
quently he obtained Of delft. and drank FIVE
glasses Of intoxicating liquor in the course
OF an hour or two, for which he paid. Two
other witnesses testified as to obtaining IL
quor of dcft. That they called on him to
get some new rum for medicinal purposes.
That deft said he had none for sale, but
would gire them some, and that he did give
to one Of the witnesses three pints, and to
the other two quarts.
Proof Of three distinct sales ct least, is
necessary to constitute common seller, and
on the part of the defence, it was contended
that only two sales had been proved. That
the delivery Of liquor, although declared by
statute to be sufficient evidence Of sale was
not concluMce, but should be controlled BY
all the circumstances attending the matter
The Judge SO instructed the Jury, who re-
turned verdict for delft.
Hale for State. Wiswell for dett
James II. Wheeler & al v. Isaac H. Thorn.
as. Trespass for goods (boots and shoes) al
legged to be the property of plfs. and taken
by the deft. as Sheriff Of Hancock County
on writ in favor Of Anderson Sargent & Co.
against E. II. Stockbridge. The question
was as to the ownership OF the goods-wheth-
er in the plfs, or in Stock bridge, at the time
Of the attachment by deft.
Plfs. introduced evidence to show that the
boots and shoes were consigned to Stock
bridge, or delivered to him as agent. and to
be sold by him as the agent of the plfs. 1t
was contended on the part Of the defence,
that there was an absolute sale Of the goods
to Stockbridge, and that the word agent was
used by him merely as a protection against
the demands Of creditors. The verdict was
for the plfs. for the amount of their demand,
with interest as damages
|, Wiswell forplfs. Hale for defts
Marcian II. Seavey v. N. G. Richardson.
This was an action OF debt brought on
lease given by plf. to def. of q blacksmith
shop in Mt. Desert.
The defence was that it had in part been
paid and that the delft. hired the plf to do
the blacksmith work on . brig built by him
in 1855, at 50 per day, and that plf agreed
to throw in the rent. This action was the
last ofqute list in which the deft. was
party, and in which, we are sorry to say.
he came of second best. This regret arises
entirely from sympathy for ''Uncle Nat," as
he is Familiarity called, and without knowing
J on which side was the right. The plf had
engaged distinguished counsel, but as he al
legged, his poverty, not his will, consented to
dispense with THE usually necessary con-
comitant of lawsuit, and he entered into
the work of the defence with the zeal OF a
young lover. defying the old saw, "he
wi o manages his own cause, hath fool for
"a lawyer" because the great novelist Coop
er, proved this rule has exceptions, by gain