The Somerset reporter., 1890-04-10

Thursday, Ap,1l 3-Athens vs.. Brigh-
ton, resumed.
The exhaustive arguments of Counsel
occupied the time from | \. NJ. to p,
NJ, and the Judge in his charge from to
p. NJ.
The Jury were out until the small hours
Of the morning, and brought in verdict
for the pliis. thus settling or continuing
the settlement of the paupers In Brighton.
Friday, Apra Hiram Burrill. In eq-
vs.. Loretta +. Young ct ais.
Steward for pld.
Wright for deft.
This was hearing in equity before the
Court. Plf's prayer granted. Decree
entered.
State of Maine v. Fred Moody.
Gould, County Attorney.
Holman.
The prosecution is for cruelty to ami
mails, under section %, Chap. l24, of the
Revised Statutes.
The Indictment charges the respondent
with cruelty beating, cutting and killing
his horse, on the llth day of February,
1890, against the form of the statutes, In
such case made and provided. The of
fence is alleged to have been committed
in Hartland, about three miles from the
village, where the horse was found dead
on the morning of the 18th Of February.
The witnesses testified Of traces of blood
and other indications of the victims suf-
fering and death.
The defence admits the existence and
death of the horse, but denies that the
deft contributed TO his death or that he
inflicted any cruelty upon him as charged
in the indictment.
Testimony was introduced to prove the
horse subject TO fits, and that he died in a
lit; that the blood testified Of, was pro
duced by bleeding in the mouth, as a
remedy for the disease, and that the
bruises and wounds were caused by con-
yulsions, while suffering from fits" and
throwing himself upon the ground.
| The prosecutors contend that the fits
theory is a myth, set up to cover the
guilt of the respondent coneocted by his
relatives to escape the consequences.
Submitted to the jury
Verdict guilty
Edwin b. Hill vs.. Jas. b. Dascomb ct
ais. Executors.
Walton & Walton for pin.
Merrill Coffin for deft
Assumpsit on account annexed. Date
writ February, H., 1887. Amount claim
ed $50 ,203 Is.
Alta former term of this Court, Hon.
Turner Buswel and Hon. S. A. Nye were
appointed Auditors of the account an
nexed to the writ.
The Auditors gave to the parties a
hearing of five days, and reported sum
found due the plfi. S2G, 1887; which re-
port by provision of law, became prin,o
| fucie evidence Of the amount due on the
account annexed.
The defts. plead the general issue, the
Statutes of limitation, and that the plf.
and Deft. testator were Co-partners and
therefore this action cannot be maintain
ed for portion Of said account.
This is the issue in the trial OF this
case. Defts. claim, that the testator and
plf. were partners In certain numbering
operations. from 1862 until 1875. and In
one or two operations subsequent to
1875, which entered into the amount sued
for; and introduce the plh. and several
other witnesses and papers tending to
show the partnership,
Pin relied upon the report of the Au-
ditors and contested the allegation of
Co-partnership. 1t was shown, that the
Plf ard testator in his lifetime, were
joint owners of about $4,000 acres of
timber land and that the alleged partner,
ship grew out of numbering operations on
that land.
The case will probably go to the Law
Court on exceptions
The Presiding Judge submitted the
case to the jury at p. M, having been
on trial since Saturday. April 3.
Verdict for Plff $2S, S,979 sc.
The following divorces decreed dnring
tho sST III
Ellen T. Cleveland VS. Mndril Cleveland
Abbie NJ. Robinson vs. Edwin C. Robinson
Ida A. Cleveland vs William p. Cleveland
Eta M. Park VS. Archibald Park
Eta Il. Ellsmore VS. George II. Ellsmore
Minnie A. Daley VS. Patrick DALEY
Annie +. Votu VS. Isaiah f. Votu
Julia Il. Monk VS. Clarence X. Monk
Amanda Norton vs. Robert S. Norton
Wesley NJ Bowman VS. Cora w. Bowman