Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1890-01-30
City and County.
Sup. Jud, Court. January Term, 1890

n. b. SAUNDERS. Clerk.
ELMER p SPoFFORD. County Attorney.
j. A. HAYDEN. Stenograpber.
ID. l.. FIELDS. sheriff
HARRY l.. HALE. Messenger.
The cases assigned for Wednesday, Jan. -,
having been disposed OF without trial the
jury was excused until Thursday morning.
when case agsin.t the town of Eden for al
legged damages in the laying out OF WAY WAS
in order. Among the attorneys in attendance
this morning were Hon. ii. b. CIeaNes of
Portland and Hon Herbert NJ. Heath of Au-
gu-a.
Thursday. Jan. %.
Tobis. l.. Roberts vs.. The Town OF Eden.
This WAS AN action TO recover damages for
land taken in the LAYING out ofa WAY. The
plsiutif is the owner OF lot al Bar Harbor
having frontage OF about 664 feet on Eden
street aud extending nortbea>ferly TO the shore
OF the sea. containing total area Of about 2s,-
IO ,quare feet. The portion OF the lot front
ing upon Eden street is upland. A, the lot
extend. bscAw ard from Eden street ii slope.
into rs,ine. and the ra,iue extends 10 low
land which runs 10 the shore. In February.
1889 the municipal officers OF Eden proceeded
to Ia, out sn extension OF West street 10 Eden
street but awarded no damages. The new
street extended from the corner OF the plsiu-
tins lot about half it, depth. The locstion
then turned eastery and crossed The raSine.
div iding the lot at this point. the location tax
ing ont $50 >qusre feet from the total area.
The ra,lne. twelve or thirteen feet in drpth. al
thi- point i crossed b, bridge The plain
It'd claimed that the bridge. extending almost
entirely across the lot although little les in
width than the location, prevented free access
10 the land beyond. aud that, b, the division
sud The taking of tbi> qusntity OF land, BIT, lot.
heretofore Valued AT ti,e or xix thousand dol
sr-, was reduced some TWO thousand dollar
from it, ORR inal value aud rendered practical
J, unstable. The dtfeu>e admitted the title
and the taking OF the land. but contended thst
hy the laying OUT OF the new street. that por-
zion OF the lot fronting upon Eden street aud
the new street became n corner lot aud ~s-
thu. largely enhsnced IN value. being more de
,irable for residential and business purposes;
that that portion bel oud the bridge Wss rem
dered NOR, easily accessible than II had been
before, and that the lslue Of the entire prop
erty had been increased in an amount far IN
excess of The damage which the plaintiff had
sustained.
A large number OF witnesses were examined
but their testimony was brief. being confined
MAINLY 10 the question OF damages.
Verdict for the plaintiff for S2o0
W P. Foster Dea,y a Higgins.
Friday, Jan "A.
Jsmes H. Paine ( son ". stephen l.. kings-
icy, The plaiutif> ar, mAchini-t. IL Boston
and the defendant I. a summer resident al Bar
Hsbor Plaintiffs sued 10 rccoscrs balance
Of s4t3.13 on a bill FOR materials and rcpsir,
lue defendants steamer. the ">iNtr star"
furnished al Boston aud kitIery ia the fsll u
l>>s.
Al the conclusion Of the testimony 'or plsn-
lif> the defense. being satisfied OF the correct
nr>s of the plaintiffs accounts. consented TO
Verdict for The balance clsimtd. With Interest
frrni the dnte Of the writ, amounting in all 10
S4>s A..
Geo T. button. Wi-well. hin9
< Peter.
saturday. Jan. y.
John :. Martin ". Benz. F. Fog The par
tn TO lhi- >uil reside in Hancock. The PLAIN
tn sought to recover for board and washing
for defendant and wife FOR 81 weeks. from
February -. ISIS. ut 3 ~ per week each;
e. 81 for supple, and 81, IL for labor upon
defendants farm, the claim amounting in all TO
s37632
The plaintiff claimed that in February, l>ss,
81 the solicitation OF the defendant, he agreed
10 support the latter and wife, who are a.rd
people. for the remainder OF their lives and re-
ceiNe deed OF their property and give bond
for the faithful performance Of the contract;
that tn tbie understanding he moved ur"n
the place aud remained little more tnan
wear. providing suitably for the aged couple
aud IN every way performing the contract;
that defendant frequently promised durn- thi-
time to have the writing done. but neglected
% do 90 and finally. without cause. uuerl! re-
pudIated The contract.
The defendant flied in Offset an account for
rent and supplies amounting 10 slN+. and
claimed that, at the plaintiff : ow Ii solicitation.
il was agreti the latter should have deed OF
The property aud give back mortgage 70
,ur, the support mentioned; that plaintiff
imnediatrl. came upon the place. and though
often requested 10 execute The papers found
excuses for delay; that proper support Ma
not furnished. and having become convinced
That the plaintiff would be- unable 10 carr, out
the contract aud la, ing been informed that be
Wa making up charges against the property,
he. Defendant. informed him that he should
abandon thu arrangement and the plaintiff eft,
Verdict for ih, ptAiutif for 81 iJl3
Wi>well. King X Peters.
Hale & Hamlin.