The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1888-10-25
Supreme judicial Court.
JUDGE EMERY PRESIDING.


Searsmont.
SECOND JURY. Clark NJ. Marden, foreman,
Swanville; Sanderson L. Hall, Stockton; Charles
G. Havener. Belfast; James W. Knight, Northport;
Edgar {. Knowles, Islesboro; Austin Mariner,
Lincolnville; John W. Miller, Winterport; Lucius
II. Murch, Belfast; J. NJ. Palmer, Montville; Levi
| Rich, Jackson; Freeman Richie, Monroe; Eben
Thompson, Unity.
SUPERNUMERARIES. VIM. I. Ferguson, Troy;
Cyrus J. Hall, Belfast; DavidWebber, searsport:
| Daniel Wentworth, Knox.
| The Grand Jury reported Thursday, having
found the following indictments
Charles Mcintosh, Belfast, malicious mischief.
| Frank A. Dunton, Searsmont compound larceny.
Julian c. Chandler, forgery.
| Joseph A. Gilmore, Belfast, single sale of in
toNicating liquor, for keeping a drinking house
and tipping shop, and common seller.
| William q. Cox, Belfast common nuisance and
foI keeping drinking house and tipping shop.
| Charles Skinner, Belfast common seller and
two single sales.
William G. Gilman, of Monroe, who was arrest
cd some time since for the larceny of a harness,
was given certificate of insanity.
| Charles Mcintosh was arragnetl, pleaded guilty
| and was sentenced to pay fine of S25.
Julian c. Chandler brought into Court Fri
| day afternoon and arraigned. He pleaded not
guilty.
| The first civil action was presented for trial
| Thursday.
cyrus j. Hall, Belfast, vs. Eugene NJ. Hersey
and Charles f. Hill, of Bangor 1t was an action
to recover for goods had and received, with &C
count annexed, amounting to s614.97. In March,
1884, Mr. Hall made for defendants an improved
| saw mill for the sum of $500. The defts. were
known as the Nanceboro Wooden Ware Company
and were doing business at that place. The plfs
case in substance is that in 1884, Mr. Hill and the
superintendent came to Belfast and contracted for
| mill. A sample mill was in the foundry build
ing and the mill contracted for was to be like it,
with few exceptions. Complaint was made tina,
the mill did not do the work, and Mr. Hall made
heavier carriage which was exchanged for the old
one. Pin. said the mill was put to too heavy
work Plf. also made other castings for company
| Defts. had been asked to pay but refused.
The defts. set up two defences First, the mill
had never been accepted. Second, the mill was
defective and did imperfect work and was not the
| mill contracted for. Defts. said they contracted
for mill THAT would cut large, hard wood and
green lumber, and that they told pin. what they
wanted, and that he guaranteed that the mill
| would do tina; kind of work. Verdict for pln in
| the sum of S50G26 Fogler and Pierce for pln
| Barker for defts
Wm 7. Putnam, Searsport W. Freeman y. Hail.
Prospect. An action to recover s4l.6S, balance
due on sewing machine Plif SAYS that in March,
1883, he sold deft. sewing machine. Deft agreed
| to pay for 1t when he obtained pension. The
pension was obtained but deft. has never paid.
| When the machine was delivered deft was asked
| TO sign note, but not having his glasses on deft
asked young son to write his (the fathers name
| on the note. The boy wrote his own name TO thu.
| document. Pin went out of business and the de-
mands were turned over to a bank in Boston and
the latter are the real plfs. in the case. The deft
| says that the machine sold to his wife and not
| to him. The plh. agreed to furnish her with work
by which to pay for it, but failed to do So Defts
| wife Is ready to pay for machine when the work
| Is furnished her. He partially admitted that he
| would pay for the machine but such promises are
| not binding in law Verdict for deft. THOMPSON
| for plh. Williamson for deft
| H. Z. Pitcher, Belfast, vs.. Mount Desert Bridge
| Corporation, of Eden. The plf. seeks to recover
$3.50 for the loss Of hay and straw by an accident
at the bridge Plf says that in July 1857 he shipped
from Belfast seventeen tons of hay and five tons
| OF straw for Mt. Desert in sch. William G.. Eatde
| OF Belfast Sunday July p, the schooner arrived
at the draw bridge between Mount Desert and the
mann land Mr. Thompson, the bridge tender told
| nm TO wait. The vessel laid more than one hour
al the bridge when she could have gone through at
| any time during the hour. When an attempt was
| made to go through there came a squall of wind
| ana ram, which with the strong tide parted the
vcssels stern line She ran into the draw broke off
| her JibDoom, swung her stern on to a sunken pier
| anu as the tile fell OFF the vessel split open and
was total loss. The cargo was damaged The
PIN says the vessel was lost on account of negli.
| gcnce on the part of deft.
AT the close of pins side dcft. moved for non
suit as the accident occurred on Sunday, and the
law forbids travel on Sunday except for charitable
| purposes and necessity. The Judge reserved his
opinion and ordered the case to proceed The
deft said the vessel arrived the bridge on the
Thursday before Sunday and laid at anchor YES.
sells were constantly going through the draw in the
| meantime When the attempt was made to 20
through Mr.. Thompson told the captain to wait
until the tide turned. On going through the stern
| line parted. The best line was taken ont forward.
The accident was owing entirely to the fault of the
captain in not having suitable lines to his vessel
| Verdict for defts. Thompson for plf Foger and
| King for defts
AT former term of court Mr.. Fred n Treat of
| Frankfort, was witness in a liquor case After
treat came to Belfast he failed to appear at court
and was defaulted. Last week he was brought in
lie SAID that after he came to town, on the occa-
| sion referred to, he was made drunk and carried
| out OF town. lie was fined $50 and costs, and in
| default Of payment was taken to jail.
| Inc oficlal court reporter is Ruel r. Smith of
| Bangor son of Ruel smith.
George Mayo VS.. Albert jenkins, William Gil
bertson, William X. Smith, John E. Lawrey, A. l..
McCorrison and Hosea E. Billings The parties
are all stone cutters of Belfast. The case was one
| or great Interest and attracted large audience
Inc PIN Mr.. Mayo, sned the defendants for 81 900
Ior causing his discharge from the stone ward of
Mr.. Z. d. Hail, of Belfast. The question was a
new one in the courts of this state and it was
| hoped the case might determine whether or not a
stone cutters union could cause the discharge of
| any man when the contractor wanted his services
put the case was non-suited on another point. MAYO
| says he made con tract with Mr.. Hall as foreman
oI gang OF apprentices, and took stone to cut at
regular prices. Mr. Hall hired and paid the ap
prentices, while Mayo had the profits for his com
| pensatlon. Mayo went to work in June last Pre-
vious to that Mayo had been in busness for him
self, and mad an old contract to furnish eighteen
bases for Chicago parties. Hall allowed MAYO to
complete the bases in his yard. Mayo had other
jobs OF his own. PHI says that jenkins and Gil
peftson, Two OF the defts., committee from the
local stone cutters union called upon Mr. Hall and
asked that Mayo be discharged. Their grievance
was that Mayo was sub-contractor and their
rules dld not allow such in Il union yard. PHI
said that defts claimed that unless MAYO was dis
| charged the workmen would strike and the ward
would be scabbed. Mr.. Hall did not give the COM
mttee any definite answer and he said nothing TO
Mayo. Subsequently, Smith, McCorrison, Law
rcy and Billings, the other defts, called on Mr..
Hall demanding that Mayo be discharged at once.
| The defts. informed Mr.. Hall that he coud have
twenty five apprentices, but Mayo was Il sub.cou.
tractor and must go. In consequence of this in
terview Mr.. Hall discharged Mayo Mr.. Hall
testified In substance as above. lie said his con-
tract with Mayo was an indefinite one that it coud
be terminated by either party. He thought Mavo
was making s. per day. He was working twenty.
three apprentices. MIR. Mayo's testimony was not
materially different from Mr. Halls
| Inc defence was Il gener al DENIAL but no OPEN
Ing was made. Mr. Littlefeld, counsel for dcfts
said the action was not maintainable in law ana
moved a non-snit. His grounds were, that mas
much as there was no definite contract between
Mayo and Hall 1t could be terminated by either
party Mayo could leave Mr.. Hall at any time,
and Hall could discharge Mayo at any time Mayo