The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1869-10-13
York n. Supreme judicial Court. sep.
TENDER Term, 1869.

York ~ Supreme judicial Court, sep.
temOcy Term, 1869.
BARRows J.
No. Owen Wentworth v. Stephen G. Dor
man. In this case, which was trespass for en-
tering upon plfs. beach land adjoining
his upland, in Kennebunk, and taking sea-
weed therefrom, the jury rendered verdict
for the plaintiff for $1.95. The contest was to
test the rights of the parties. 1t has consum-
ed three days in its trial. <f fg
No. 181. Edmund Warren v. Increase s.
Kimball. Writ of entry 20 recover possession
of certain premises in Shapleigh, conveyed to
plf by one Weber; deft claims by attach
ment and levy upon writ and execution in
suit against said Weber, wherein Kmball
was plf. PIT contends that the attachment,
though nominally prior to the recording of the
deed, was in fact made subsequently,, and
fraudulently dated back by said Kimbalrs
procurement, by the officer liking it. Plf.
also alleges that the writ in suit, Kimball
v. Weber, contained the general money
count, with no specification of claim to be
proved hereunder, at the time judgment was
taken; and that the specification now appear
ing therein has been put there clandestinely
since the rendition of Judgment. OF course
the def. denies these charges and claims that
the attachment and levy are regular and OBJ
tanned at the time and in the manner which
the papers indicate. The Court ruled that the
officers return of the date of his attachment
upon the writ of Kimball v. Weber was con-
elusive, and that Warren could not showt hat
the return or writ was ante-dated. His reme-
dy, If defrauded by such proceeding, was by
suit against the officer. Thereupon the case
was taken from the jury and reported. If the
ruling of Judge Barrows be correct the plf. is
to be nonsuit; otherwise the cause is to stand
for trial. Cd
No 267. Alice S. Hilton v. Saml Mccain.
Writ Of entry to recover possession of GER
tain premises in Buxton. Plaintiff claims as
devisee of the late John P. Hilton and as
grantee of one Mrs. Nichols. Defendant admits
that Mrs Hilton is entitled to the life estate in
the premises, and disclaims any purpose Of
claiming possession thereof during her life
time: and says that he claims no interest in
any part of the premises demanded which is
not included in the homestead farm of the late
John P. Hilton. AS to the homestead farm OF
of John P. Hilton, Mccain declares himself
entitled to the reversion thereof after the death
of Mrs. Hilton. Both parties derive their re-
spective titles from late John P. Hilton who
was the husband of the plaintiff. John P. and
Alice s. Hilton had no children. They adop-
ted one Charles H. King who assumed their
name and ever after bore it, to the day of his
death. Charles became intimate with one
Lucy E. Mccain, daughter of the defendant
and the result of that intimacy was that she
became enciente by him. She discovered heI
situation while she was in Massachusetts and
communicated it to him by letter. When she
came home to be confined Charles met her lat
some point-said by the defendant to be at
Saco and by the plaintiff at Lawrence) and
carried her home. They then, and afterwards
represented themselves as married to each other
and cohabited together as man and wife, and
were believed to be so in the community She
bore him three children, viz: Cora, born Dec
| 10, 1857; Frank born June 8, 1859, and third
child born April II, 1868. Upon his deathbed
John P. Hilton ma lie his will, March II, 1861
devsiug all his real estate to his wife (plf) fol
life; then, after her DEATH to their adopted son
Charles, for his life; then after Charles death
to said Charles two children, Cora and Franz
in fee. Immediately thereafter John P. Hill
ton. died ami his will took effect, the estates
vesting as above stated. Frank died October
| 10, 1861, and Cora died Nov. II 1861. The
third child died soon after its birth and had ne
rights in this property, which was specially de-
vised to Cora and Frank by name. Charlie.
H. Hilton end Lucy E. Mccain went to Do
yer. N. H. Oct. %, 1864, and were married
there on that day by the clerk of that city
Charles died in the fall of 1864 and Lucy dice
in the summer of 1865. InasmuchI as defend
ant believes that they were never married til
Oct. 90 1864, after the birth and death Of thei
children, Ae claims that, upon the death o
| these children their vested interest in the rea
estate devised to them by John P. Hilton passed
to their mother Lucy, because they were il
legitimate and in the eye of the law had NJ
recognized father; and contends that,up her
Lucy's death, the estate came to him as he
father and heir, and that he is entitled to tn,
reverson, but not to the present possession
and he disclaims being now tenant of tn
freehold within the meaning of the Statute
The plaintiff asserts that Charles and Luc,
were married before the birth of either child
that the children were legitimate; that thei
father, Charles, inherited from them and hi
mother from him and that she has conveyed
her title to this plaintiff.-On trial. $50