Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1876-04-27
ssP lad CSsrs--AprtI Term. 1870.
HON. JOHN A. PETERS. JUSTICE PRESIDING.

" cdne,day April 10.
Alice NJ. Giles. by next friend Y. James ID
Five.
Action OF trcspa>s 10 recover for Injuries in
nicicd on PHI. girl ten year. old. by Den.
dog.
fhe injury complained OF happened two
year, As' 10 Plh. NJ she was going to Post Of
tee in North Rrooklin. The dog attacked her.
threw her down and slightly bit her leg. II
wAs not very serioa, injury. and tn. Jury re-
turned averdici for SO
friPp for Plf. Emery for Deit.
April II and %.
Bucksport and Bangor Il. Il. Co.. '. Inhab-
liant, Of Brewer
ms was an action to recover s20. 900 sub
/ scrip,ion made by the town TO the stock Of the
K. u. Co. 1t was resisted upon various
grounds, but mainly that condition that the
location through Brewer should be satisfactory
to the >electmcn and the location actually made
was not satisfactory. The Il. H. CO., claimed
that the refusal OF the sclectmcn to be satisfied
with the location was unreasonable and in bad
faith. The town insisted that the Co. could
not show that. Amer the Pifrs. testimony wa.
IN. the case was reported to the full court. 10
settle the law.
Halo & Emery Edward Ken.
Hadiock for Plf. Hutchings for Den
April "a.
Monroe Young V. Oren Parker.
Action for breach Of covenants OF warranty
and seisin IN deed OF lot OF land in Ellsworth
bounded North by Peter McGowns lot. Plh
claimed that he had incurred much expense in
defending the premises against Carlton No
Gown, who claimed to own them. and hai f.
naily been eyicted by him. /, appeared tina; the
controversy with Carlton McGown had been
about lot thai was supposed to be embraced
IN Plh's. deed but in fact was not. /, also al
pearcd tina, Defendant had no title TO the lot
actually conveyed. The case was then arranged
by PM. amending his writ SO a. 10 claim for
breach ofcoycnant Of seisiu, and defendant was
defaulted for the purchase money and interest.
Wiswell for Pin. Emery for Den.
April y.
jeremiah Wooster v William T. Desisle.
Action for bill Of outfits furnished to Schoon-
er Lucy Ann in ls7i. (. W, Dodge, master.
PIN claimed tina; Desislc expressly promised
10 pay for the outfits, and tina; he accordingly
sold them 10 Dcsise on his credit. Den claim
cd that he never promised 10 pay for the out
tit. and that Pin. had given some credit TO
Dodge. the Master, and so could not hold Des-
isle Il, there was no written agreement. The
question for the jury was whether the goods
were sold wholly on Desile's credit. or wholly
or partly on credit Of Dodge. They rendered
verde: for the defendant.
Wlsweli for Pin. Emery for the Den.
ApIn
Austin Il. Walker Y. S.wall W. Perkins.
Action for bill Of dry goods delivered Deft's.
wife in ls72 amer separation OF husband and
wifi.
The defendant contended that he had made
suitable arrangement. for the support Of his
wife amer their separation, but that h> wife
unreasonably refused 10 accept them. PHI. in
sisted that he furnished the articles in good
faith and that they were necessary for the " fe,
and that she had no means Of obtaining them
elseN here II was also claimed that the sepa-
ration was voluntary, and that Perkins implied
IL permitted his wife 10 get articles on his &C
count Verdict for Plf. for $40.
Wiswell & Joy for PHI. Peters Emery for
Den.