Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1891-10-22
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.

LUCnIUs \. EMERY, Justice Presiding
John F. Know iton. Clerk
James ". Patterson. Sheriff.
+. L. Spotiord. County Attorney.
Albert III. Small. >tenographer.
I. c. Lord, Messenger.
" ednesday. oct. IA.
The first business OF the day wa> the organ
lZlnG OF the traverse iurIes. The folio wing are
the Juries AS they were impaneied:
FIRST TRAVERSE JURY.
Walter II. Gardner. (foremsn) Bucksport;
Bailey Bowden, Bluehili; Michael Brady Els
worth; William II. Brimmer. Ellsworth: C.
\. Bunker. Gouldsboro; Lewis W Bunker
Eastbrooh; Eben Is. Clark. fremont: Frank
+. Cotton. Orland; Ephraim {. Over, Frank
lin; Gersham Farnhau. Brooksville; W. ".
Grant. Ellsworth; Parker Is. Billings, >eds-
wick.
SECOND TRAVERSE JURY.
Frank +. Lewis, (toremsul Castine; Hiram
Gross. Deer Isle: Herbert II. Hale Bruokiin:
BRIGHAM Haynes, Dedham: Alvin K. Heath
Penob-cot; Edmund Is. Hodg kin. Lamoine;
Herbert @. johnson. sullivan: Plymouth II
Leland, Eden johnson II. Lufkin Deer Isle;
Hoface Marks. Trenton; NJ. b. Sllsby. Auro-
ia; Lyman II. Somes. Mt. Desert.
UPERNUMERARIEs.
J. +. Staples, surry; Dennis d. Syazey
Bucksport; Ernest W. Wooster, Hancock
The first case for trial. "Wednesday f H.
Greely vs.. Alexander Martin. was All action
to recover the amount of Il note given bv the
defendant to The plaintiff The plaintiff claim
ed that the note was given for the con .idera-
ton that he, the plaintiff would assume the
proportional part OF another note of which
both the plaintiff and the defendant with 9th.
ers were signer>, which the defendant would
have been compelled 10 psy had not the plain
tiff, Greely. paid 1t for him. The defence
was no consideration and part paymeat which
r1ar I..Ir mon had h,..n .tnr-a 10.
note by the plaintiff Verdict for the plaintiff
Hale h HAmiin for plsin,itf
Is. /. sowle and Martin. per Sc, for defence.
Wednesday afternoon the case Of A. +. Con.
ners A. S. Getchell came on. This was an
action TO recover the rent Of stable situated
at Bar Harbor. The plaintiff. n resident of
that place, claimed that he let the stable to the
defendant for the summer OF 1890 and that
when he demanded pay, the defendant ssid
the stable had not been leased to him, the de-
PENDANT. but 10 one b. +. Getcheli, his brother
The plaintiff claimed that b. F. Getchell was
the agent OF A. ). Getcheil. The defence was
that while IN previous Years the defendant,
A. 5. GetcheIi. and his brother b. r. Getchell
had been associated in the stable business at
Bar Harbor, during the year in question the
defendant, A. S Getchell, bad nothing to do
with the leasing OF the stable OF the plaintiff
and that b. +. Getchel was the responsible
party. Verdict for the plaintiff for 5000,
with interest
Deasy for PHI Foster for Deft
Late Wednesday afternoon the case Of Nor
risos X JOY vs.. Geo. A. Martin John r.
Scammon aud Samuel S. Clark was begun
This was an action to recover pay for certain
articles furnished by the plaintiffs, dealers 10
hardware at Ellsworth. to the defendant. Geo
4. Martin. the plaintiffs claiming that the ar
ticles We're simply delivered to Martin AS one
of the three defendants as c0-tenants and used
by them in the construction OF saw-miIl at
| Franklin. The defence was the insolvency of
Martin and that there was no lien against John
7. Gordon. MORTGAGE of the property and no
prvity with rest of defendants.
Thursday. Oct. Is.
The case Of Morrison 4 JOY VS.. Martin.
Scammon and Clark, was continued, the case
arriving at point about ten o'clock in the
forenoon, when it was withdrawn from the
jury and reported TO the Law Court.
Hale & HsmIin b. T. Sowle
for Pin. for Defts.
Friday. Oct. 16
| John D. Baisdel VS.. Crabtree & Havey. An
action Of trespa.s. The plaintiff is resident
| Of sullivan. the defendants carrying on the
granite business at the same place. The plain
| till : claim was that he defendants, owning
wharf on the shore OF Taunton Bay. hired Of
him right of way through his field. for the
purpose OF hauling granite to their wharf for
shipment. and that there were other parties
| having wharves near the wharf of the defend.
Ii. u,
right Of way; that the defendants having
bought the other wharyes near their own had
J joined them in one wharf BY building additions
/ and refused to pay any additional sum for the
right of way, which the former owners had
| been accustomed to pay. but claimed that as the
wbarves were al, joined in one wharf, they
| had right to use the way for hauling to all OF
| the wbarves. The defendants further claim.
| ed that they had a right of way by neces-
sity. and that therefore there was no tres
| pass, because Of there being no other road out.
| the plaintiff claiming that there was another
way, but that the defendants crossed his land
| because it was more convenient. Verdict for
| plaintiff for $1,000.
Wswell. King & Peters for Plf
Dutton, and Hale l. Hamlip for Defts
Saturday, Oct. II.
| : The Grand Jury reported in the forenoon.
! The number of indictments is SO, as follows {:
arson, l.; adultery, 1; larceny, / /; assault and
battery. l; malicious mischief, l; tramp, 1 !;
liquor, SO.
Merrick Thread Company VS.. q. ii. & B.
| Hall. This was an action of trespass Qudre
ctdusdm, the plaintiffs, q corporation Of the
State of Massachusetts, the defendants lum-
Der firm Of Ellsworth. The plaintiffs claimed
| that one Jacob Frost. the agent of the defen-
dants, while engaged with a crew of men in
| cutting wood on land in the town OF Hancock,
upon which. the defendants, Hall. had bought
| the stumpage, trespassed upon the land of the
| pidintius aulOlnlIlS Tue T1dll lduu anu cut an
amount of wood. The defendants admitted
the trespass, but claimed that it was accidental.
and that furthermore, the amount Of wood
taken was not nearly as large as claimed by
the plaintiffs, by reason of the land having
been cut over in seasons before, and also that
the wood cut was Of poor quality. The plain
tiffs claimed 1925 damages. Verdict for plain
tiffs for $50 90.
| Burnham for Plfs. Hale & Hamln
for Defts.
| Monday, Oct. 10.
James NJ. Mcfarland VS.. Stephen D. Joy.
This was real action involving the title to q
landing place in the town Of Hancock near
the head of Skillings River. The parties are
residents of the town of Hancock and own the
land in the immediate vicinity of the disputed
! territory. The plaintiff claimed title BY rec
ord, and deeds were introduced involving
muchSof the early history Of that section. The