Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1890-11-06


JOHN +. kNOwLToN, Clerk.
ELMER p SPoFFoRD, County Attorney.
Miss ABBY PULsIFER, Stenographer.
d. l.. FIELDS. Sheriff
JOHN A. STUART, Messenger.
Wednesday, oct %.
Joseph +. Moore VS.. James NJ. Tread
well, Jr This was an action of assumpsit
| brought to recover pay for board of de-
! PENDANT and hired men aud for use of horse
furnished by plaintiff Plea was the gen
eral issue.
Verdict for plaintiff, $500.
Jasper Hutchings 7. W. Eose
for PHI for Dcft
Thursday. Oct. 80
Sarah A. Moore rs. James NJ Treadwell,
,Jr In plea of trespass for that the said
defendant at said Ellsworth on the LIST day
of NAV. A D, lsss. With force ard arms
in and upon the plaintiff made an assault
and her then and there beat. wounded and
i'll treated against the peace Of said State.
The defendant for plea says he was not
guilty in manner and form as The plaintiff
declared against him. And for brief state
ment says that whatever he did at the
time and place alleged in plaintiffs writ he
did solely for the purpose OF securing,
preserving and protecting his own proper
", then and there in his possession. from
the attack and assault of the plaintiff and
sn attempt by her to take his property, to
Lie b1rsa aud harness from, hirr1b ny
force. using no more force than was neces-
sary for that purpose
Verdict for plaintiff, $3.50.
Jasper Hutchings 7. W. Nose
Y for PHI. for Def.
State of Maine by indictment vs.. Amos
7 Richardson. This was an indictment
for larceny in which the respondent who
was agent for the Singer Manufacturing
| Company is charged with having taken
and converted to his own use while acting
as said agent the sum of seventy seven
dollars and sixty-tive cents. Upon being
arraignel the respondent pleaded not gull
ty and was put upon trial. The evidence
offered or obtainable by the Government
being insufficient to prove the incorpora
ton and legal existence Of the company.
on motion Of the county attorney the case
was mol prosed.
L. 7. Spotford Wiswell. King
for State. Peters for Resp.
State Of Maine by indictment vs.. Add
son Bridges ct ais. The indictment set
orlh that the respondent with force and
arms in a small cove, 10 wit in Sand Cove,
the entrance to which from opposite shores
\ of the same is not more than three nautical
mile, In width took two thousand herring
by the use of a purse seine of more than
one hundred and seventy meshes in depth.
The respondent admitted taking said
4 herring with said seine. II is also admit
/ ted that the same can be satisfactorily
/ proved that the respondents were owners
I Of the vessel ard seine employed In such
/ fishing. but it was claimed that such proof
7 was incompetent. because the fact was not
alleged in the indictment.
The case is to be reported TO the law
/ court on agreed statement Of facts. The
law corrt TO decide upon the sulilcienCy Of
the indictment and as to whether the Sand
I Cove as shown by coast survey map is
small bay. inlet, harbor or river within the
/ meaning of sec. Il, chap. 80 Of the revised
statutes as amended by chap. POI of the
public laws Of the year l,e5. and as amend
cd by chap. 800 Of the public laws Of the
he ~ tn ~
ment as the case required on their report.
I +. 7. Spoiord WisweIl, King
] for State. Peters for Resp.
State of Maine by indictment vs. Charles
skinner This was AN indictment, for lar
ceny. 10 which the respondent pleaded
guilty. Sentenced to . years in State pri>-
/ on.
Friday, oct. 81.
/ State of Msine ". Alexander Martin
( Applt This action was appealed from
/ judgment Of the municipal court. The
complaint was made by Michael +. IIeaey,
who i conductor on the Maine Central
railroad The complaint alleges that the
respondent refused to pay his fare on said
road, In trial Of this case the defendal
who lives in I.amoine claimed he WAS on
his way from Bar HalbOr to the Franklin
Road station, IN Hancock, the place where
he intended to leave the train and that lie
paid to that station. but at the time lie ar
rived his mind being preoccupied he did
not notice the arrival and departure of the
train, ard so he was taken past that, his
station, without fault of his and for that
reason refused to pay his tare.
Verdict guilty. Sentenced 10 fine of
$40 ard costs of suit taxed at $40. Fire
and costs paid.
Z. T. Spottord Alex. Martin
for State. pro sc.
State of Maine by Indictment vs.. Charles
L. Udall The respondent was charged
with larcency Of goods valued at $1,000,
the property of one } +. Whitaker. Udall
arrived at Bar Harbor on the 29th of June
last, where for several years he had trad
ed summer season. in jewelry and bric-a-
brac, spending his winters in Florida
where he carried on Ike business. The
Government charged that his entire stock
w:s sold and delivered to Whitaker for
the sum Of 500 cash and note of 5000,
signed by X. Hamor & Sons. The respond
ent claimed that the goods were pledged
to Whitaker as security for the loan of
$1,000, and after delivery he, Udall. being
Informed that the note was worthless de-
termined to leave Bar Harbor and aban-
don the pledged goods to Whitaker. The
respondent further claimed that the only
goods pledged consisted of seventeen cas-
es containing birds, alligators, etc, " hich
comprised his usual stock The govern
ment claimed that jewelry to a large
amount and valued at $500 was included
and that the transaction constituted sale.
1t was proven and admitted that the jew
elry was taken by Udall from Bar Harbor
on the lst day of July and the main is
sue in controversy was whether or not the
jewelry was included in the transaction
} and whether the transaction constituted q
sale or pledge. The trial began Friday
at O'Clock p. NJ, and was concluded Mon
day Econ. large number of witnesses
were examined on each side.
The jury after remaining out five hours
J returned verdict of not guilty.
Z. z. Spoford Deasy Higgins