The Portland daily press., 1889-05-11
LINCOLN COUNTY s. }. COURT
BEFORE JUDGE HASKELL.

WIscAssET, May 8.
Mary A. Hutchins VS.. Charles w. Ford
This was an action TO recover Of the defendant,
amember OF the Portland Loyds, his proportion
ate part OF policy OF insurance for $500 ON the
brig Emily 7: sheldon. which was lost off Cape
Coz March ~, 1886; on voyage from Boothbay,
The plaintiff introduced testimony 10 show that
the brig sailed from B0othbay March 18th for An.
encountered heavy weather, during which her
mainsail was split and her rudder was disabled
Inat tne captain became insane; and the vessel
total wreck.
The captain of the vessel testified that on the
night previous TO the wreck, being worn out by
exposure and fatigue and suffering from NAL arial
disease, he went below. took 10 grains of quinine
Iald down upon the lounge, and remembered no
more until he regained consciousness at the life
saving station upon Cape Cod the following after
noon after the wreck.
The defense introduced testimony to show the
presence OF liquor on board the vessel. demijohns
aud empty bottles in the cabin, and to show that
the captain was intoxicated on the day of the
wreck; that he refused the aid Of two steam tugs
that came to his assistance, threatened his crew
with the penalties of mutiny II they disobeyed his
run upon the bar In broad daylight with the wind
on shore. The defense also introduced the testi-
m0ny of DR.. s. ii. Weeks of Portland, to show
that qunne taken in the quantity and under the
circumstances stated by the master, could not pos
siby produce insanity,
when she sailed upon her voyage. and was wreck
ed from the perils Of the sea. and the wreckIng
resulted from the drunkenness of the master, the
conduct OF the master would not exonerate the
defendant from the risk assumed by the policy.
ri, The verdict was for the plaInt Tor seq 7e the
further found that the drunkenness OF the master
was not the proximate cause of the disaster.
Inc defendant filed motion for a new trial and
exceptions, and the case goes forward
y. ID. Cashier and w. Gilbert.
A. A. Strout and L. M. Staples.
wIscAssETT. May 10.
ger An action of trespass relating to the cutting
OF quantity OF hay upon farm claimed by the
plalntln, situated In Waldoboro. Verdict for de-
W. Gilbert and H. Bliss, Jr. LIN. Staples.
The following divorces weredecreed.
John II: Ewell libellant, VS.. Anna Ewell, for ut
o. d. Cashier for nbellant.
Eliza 2. Lewis, libellant, VS.. Fred X. Lewis, for
G. II. Fisher for lbeliant.
II. Bliss. Jr for libellee.
Ellis Hurd and j. Edwin Eaton, Of waldoboro.
each paid fine of 500 and costs on indictments
as common sellers
FREQ A; Robinson. for larceny was sentenced to
ten months in the county jail
The court adjourned finally to day.
"A case between the towns of Boothbay and
B0othbay Harbor was heard this morRing before
Judge Haskell as referee. The question was as
TO the settlement Of Jack Boyd, pauper, and the
support OF Frank Williams, an inmate Of the Re
form school,. The referee found that BOYD, at the
time OF The division OF the old town Of Boothbay.
UNDER the act OF February 16, 1889. had his resi-
dence In that part Of the old town of Boothbay
not included In the portion which is now Booth
bay Harbor. and is now a charge upon the town
of Boothbay.
The court also found that Frank Williams is not
2 pauper, but that the expenses Of his support at
Ihe reform school are liability upon each town
IN proportion to its respective Valuation, namely
% per cent for Boothbay Harbor and 43 per cent
for the town of Boothbay.