Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1885-10-29
Sup. Jud. Oourt-Oot. Term, 1885.
ENoCB FOSTER. Justice Presiding.
OFFICERS OF THE COURT.

ENoCH FOSTER. Justice Presiding.
OFFICERS OF THE COURT
II. r. SAUNDERS. Clerk.
q. r. FELLOWS. County Attorney
EDWARD h. MrLLikEN. Stenographer.
u. l.. FIELDS. Sheriff
Geo. II. Grant II. VI. Eaton, trustee.
oct. l.. This WAS an action brought to re-
cover ~ milk cans, alleged to have been de-
posted for safe keeping with the trustee.
Defendant claimed that under certain mort
gage the property mentioned had been includ-
ed snd that he could hold the same. Thi. case
was withdrawn from the jury and will be de-
eded by the court.
pca>y for PHI Sowle for def
Trip for trustee.
Donald VI. stuart ct ais. Edward f. Brady
ri al.
Thi- l. an action on the case known - an
action Of tort. The plaintiff alleged that nv
the act Of the defenlan, in building stable
upon the premises in the rear of the Brady
store. right OF wsy existing 10 the rear 81
Coomh>' block, had been nfringcd, and claimed
that said right Of way existed for more than
fifty Years. The defense claimed that the way
had often been ob>truc,ed and that the use
OF said premises a. way. was by permission
OF the owners The jury returned verdict
for the plaintiff, assessing nominal damages at
Sle0.
Wi-well & King Dutton for def.
for PHI.
Daniel W. Brewer Eiihu T. Hamor.
Oct. % This was an action to try the title
10 certain real estate. in which the plaintiff
alleged that he was seized Of certain real estate
In thu town OF Eden, hitch the defendant hs.
UNJUST, i>.eized. The jury returned YER
dict for the plaintiff Of sl.oo and a special
finding that the defendant wa. entitled 10 one
undivided eleventh part.
Hale 4 Hamlin wi-well 4 King
for plf. for def
John II Higgins James l.. Brown.
oct. - Thi- WAS an action Of repicyin in
" hich the plaintiff introduced bin Of sale Of
two horses claimed in Thu action. The de-
PENDANT claimed that although the signature TO
the bill OF sale was hi. own. vet that the sir
cum,tauces under which il was signed nvali-
dated IL. claiming to have executed the paper
whiie under durc-.. Defendant clsmtd that
plaintiff had threatened him with an Indictment
IN prosecution for crime committed when he
va. 4 boy. The plaintiff. on the other hand.
alleged that the defendant had circulated -can-
dalou- reports concerning him and that the bill
Of sale had passed in settlement Of claim re-
sulting therrfrom. The jury returned a scr-
dict for defendant and upon the question OF
damage. thereafter submitted to them, re-
turned finding Of sl91.Jo for defendant
Wi-wc & King Redman for
FOR PHI. def
Gideon l.. Joy ct ais. apprts.. Maine Shore
Line r. X. Go.
Oct. -. This was an action for land dam
sgc.. The plaintiff claimed loss Of mill
privilege on Kilkenny stream, in the town Of
Hancock. resulting from the AZ; Of defendant.
The question was a. 10 extent Of damages. the
count! commissioners having prior 10 th, &C
tion awarded damages TO plaintiff. The jury
assessed the damages at $50.
button for Hale 4 Hamn
pin. for def.
Mark Gray Joseph l.. Buck.
oct III. After hearing the evidence in this
case the Court ordered Il non-,ut.
Cunningham i >tet.on wiswell & King
for pli for deft