Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1873-11-06

JUDGE BARRows. PRESIDING.


John W. Swazey & ais. VS.. Burllham Es-
ties.
This case was on trial four days. and
concluded on Thursday afternoon. II was
al action of Trespass. brought to recover
damages for the wrongful act of defendant
in cutting away and tearing down plain
tits mill dam. situated on Long Pond
Stream in Bucksport. The defendant did
not deny the acts complained of, but justi-
fled them Oh the ground that as this was a
fioatable stream, he was entitled to the
natural flow of the water to run his logs,
and alleged that plaintiff, by his dam OBJ
structed the same, and wilfully denied to
defendant the use of the water, and in 9TH
er ways prevented him from driving his
logs. Defendant also proved that in the
ponds above Long Pond, he purchased a
reserve of water for the purpose of in
creasing the water in this stream, and
claimed that on this account he was enti-
tied TO the free flow of this additional
water.
The Court instructed the jury that both
parties had a common interest in the nat
ural flow of the water. and that neither
had right TO interfere with it. to the in
jury OF the other; that the purchase of wa
ter gave defendant no right TO the same to
the exclusion of plaintiff's right
The conclusion of the instructions was
in these words If the defendant did no
more injury TO the gates and dam than was
reasonable in order to give him the natural
How of the water at this stage of it, or to
prevent the unreasonable detention of it
by the plaintiff. he is entitled to your YER
dict But, if his intention was to get wa
ter enough TO float his logs below there
without regard to the stage of the water
nd hp ont - Ia,
able regard to the rights of the mill own
er. then. your verdict must be against him
for so much damages as were the direct
and natural consequences of his own acts
and those done by the men 10 his employ
by his direction.
Verdict OF Jury, Not Guilty.
Hale, Emery Woodman for Plffs.
Wiswell Knowles for Def.
No. l54. Orray A. Taft, Jr. VS.. Alexan-
der Martin JOS. Ii. Doyle.
This was an action brought by the Plff.,
who is Il citizen of Rhode Island. for abuse
of legal process on the part of Defts. Mar
tin, on Sept, 1871. sued out a special writ
authorizing the arrest of plaintiff, who was
about to leave the State on the 2lst. and
placed the process in the hands OF Doyle.
an officer who in all things followed Mar
tins directions. The testimony showed
ltidb sOl W WDtTe
the writ was served on evening of the Goth,
at nine O'Clock. and that he and Doyle
made their appearance at the public house
I where plaintiff was boarding, at five min
utes before one o'clock the next morning.
/ The plaintiff was aroused, threatened with
arrest. and as he testified. with being taken
| TO Ellsworth, and under the pressure. gave
| up 500 in money, to be held as security BY
/ the officer. The next day at Ellsworth he
rendered bond, but it was refused on the
ground that the security was not ample
Defendants contended that no steps were
taken beyond authority of law. The jury
thought otherwise. and brought in a verdic
for the plaintiff for 500.
Hale Il Emery for Wiswell Tor Def
Plaintiff
Alexander Martin VS.. Orr ay \. TAFT.
This was the action Oh which the defend
ant in this suit was arrested, which arres
was the ground of the action In the previ
Gus case. The plaintiff claimed pay for [
bill of work which was performed. as he
testified. by one Henry Rogers with plain
tin s team under contract made betwee'
plaintiff and one Bowman. former agen
Tor the defendant. Bowman confirme
pialntin S view, but Rogers who was calle
oy the defendants. told so good and plain
story against both Martin and Bowman
hat, after the testimony Was out, tn