The Somerset reporter., 1890-09-25


replies that, while such may be the law
when the line, as town line is called In
question, such is not the law when the
line between the owners of private lands
is in question; and without admitting
that the line established by the commits
sloners Is the true town limo, or that
their proceedings were regular and ac-
cording to law, he claims that for more
than forty years fence has existed be.
tween his land and the plaintiffs, up 10
which he and those through whom he
claims have occupied openly, notorious
iy, exclusively. and adversely, thereby
establishing the line of said fence as the
true and legal line between thsir lands.
The presiding justice viewed the premi-
ses, heard the evidence, and then, by
consent Of the parties, reported the case
to the law court for decision.
Walton & Walton for plaintiff
Merrill, & CONN for defendant.
Saturday dfternoon-Cyrus X. Upper
and Frank L. Plummer were admitted to
the bar after passing very creditable
examination.
Monday Sept. 22-The two cases which
were set down for trial this morning were
both defaulted, the defendant not appear
ing In either case and the judge thereup-
onexcused the jury Until ~ O'Clock Tues
day morning.
Three tramps were brought into court,
but no indictment having been found
against them, they were discharged, with
admonition from the presiding judge,
that they better nnd some other occupa-
tlon than tramping.
Eugene Gerry plead guilty to en- indict-
ment for breaking and entering In the
day time, the dwelling house of George
l.. Hayden Of Cornville, and stealing
therefrom watch valued At GIG. As this
was his first offense, the judge sentenced
him to only one year In the states prison
which is the lightest sentence that
could be imposed under the law.
Daniel Mcneil plead not guilty to al
Indictment for assaulting his wife. HI
afterward retracAd his plea and plead
guilty, the judge suspending sentence
until tomorrow morning, when he will
be given further hearing.
Frank Vittum plead guilty to an indlct
ment for being common seller of intox
icating liquor, and was fined SlOO, ant
costs amounting to $229l.
Tuesday, Sept. 23-Danlel Mcneil, af
ter a further hearing. in which his wifi,
and several other witnesses testified, wa
sentenced to be imprisoned thirty days fl
the county jail, and to pay a fine Of 825
The defendant had already been confine,
In jail between two and three months.
Wiiliam n. Lincey VS.. E6en H. Pease
Inis WAS an action for money had an,
received. The plaintiff said tina, June 7
1883, he held note against Solomon Bas
ford, on which there was due S67. IS; tina
on that day he left 1t with the defendan
as security for $25, advanced by him OF
but refused Is fae AsEs9ad!saa!ti !stssgY aS
The defendant says that he bought til
note OF the plaintiff and gave S25 for 1t
that he sold 1t for $24-Sl less than b
paid Tor Ito lawyer Whiting, of New
port. The testimony was conflicting
The jury, after being out for seyers
hours, returned verdict for the plaInti
for S33.Gs.
Hackett for plaintiff.
Davis for defendant.
John w. Manson, Executor vs.. William
X Lancey and Isaac H. Lancey.
This was an action on a promisor
note for "a 900, dated Feb. 20, 1875, give,
by W. X. Lancey and Isaac II. Lsncey t,
the plaintiffs father. The defense wa
the statute Of limitations. There wer
several endorsements on the note
amounting to between two and three thou
SAND dollars, which were admired bv tn
defendants to be valid. The hinge upor
which the case turns. is whether or no
the last endorsement OF 1926 feet of pin,
boards ID also valid one. This endorse
ment bears the date of Oct. l6, 1888. I'm
the boards were furnished In 1881. TIL,
plaintiff claims that l. II. Lancey author
lied him to make this endorsement upor
the note. and was present at the time 4
was made. The defendant, while he doe,
not admit that he 80 authorized the plain
TIN, contends that even II such were tn,
fact, the payment must be considered A,
made In 1881, at the time the boards were
furnished, and not In 1885 when the,
were actually endorsed on the note. II
the endorsement be considered as made
In 1881, that, being within six wears OF
the bringing Of the suit, will take IL with.
out the Statute Of Limitations, and the
paintiif can recover; II, on the contrary.
the endorsement be regarded as made in
1885, that will bring 1t within the statute
and the plaintiff cannot recover. After
the evidence was all out, by agreement of
counsel, the case was reported to the law
court for decision.
Stewart for plaintiff.
5. 5. Brown and Hackett for defend.
ant.
Wednesday, Sept. 24-ozam Smart VS.
Ed. A. Cass.
Ihis was an action on a promissory
note for $500 given by the defendant to
ozam Smart, and by him sold to John O
Haines VIII was plaintiff 10 interest. The
note was executed April 1889 and sold to
Haines about the first of August follow
Ing for S5. The defendant testified tina,
between the date of the note and the time
when 1t was sold to Haines be had maid
the full amount due upon 1t but neglected
to have the amounts paid endorsed upop
the note or to take 1t up when the sums
paid amounted to enough to pay the
amount due upon the note. Smart. To
whom the note ran, testified that no such
payments had btsa made, and that $500 and
interest were due upon 1t at the time be
sold 1t to Haines. The issue was In rela
ton to this alleged payment. The Jury
found verdict In favor of the defendant.
futile for plaintiff.
Danforth & Gould for defendant.
While the jury were out on the fore
goieg case Charles Kennedy was ar.
raigned, on an Indictment charging him
W. WIN single sale Of intoxicating liquor
ne pleao guilty and was sentenced to pay
. nne Of $50 and costs of prosecution
1axeo 81 s26.l7, Fine and costs paid.
PROMPT and Vlaovoue.