Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1892-04-28

April Term, 1002.
LucILIus A. EMERY, Justice Presiding.
JOHN +. kNowLroN, Clerk
JAMES W. PATTERSON, Sheriff
T. r. sPoFFoRD. County Attorney.
ALBERT H. SMALL, stenographer.
FRED SWIFT, Messenger.
Wednesday, April 20.
In the case OF Carr VS.. Robinson reported a
on trial last week. the defence was \ pener.
denial OF the allegations Of the plaintiff: that
defendant did not hire plaintiff or his horses
that defendant had horses during the winter
Tor their keeping aud that the plaintiff himself
rendered slight services simply in exchange
for his board. Verdict for defendant.
Truman n. Simpson ct ais. vs.. John d. Blais.
dell. The parties reside In Sullivan. This
was real seton to recover one-sixth In COM
mon and undivided of a wharf and OF one-half
aere OF land in Sullivan. The facts 10 brief
were as follows: In 1898 Joseph Blsisdell.
father Of the defendant. executed a deed to
George Human and another Of granite QUAR-.
ry, with road to the shore. and q " hsrf there.
known IS the Wooster 4 Sanborn wharf, and
also "a half acre OF land at the wharf or near
Ueeu
Hinmsn acquired the interest OF the other
grantees. be plaintiffs claim the one-sxth As
heirs, through their mother, Of Geo. Human
The defendant claimed that the deed was in.
operative 10 convey the one-half acre on &C.
count OF the Indebtedness OF the description
The plaintiffs offered evidence Of the acts Of
the parties some time subsequent TO the date
a he IN shnx % H.,
half acre lot. The defendant further claimed
that In ls46 Human verbally released to
Joseph Blsisdell. of whom defendant Is sole
heir, the wharf and the half acre lot in consid-
Grafton Of new road across Blsisdelrs land to
the Hopewell wharf, so-called, and that in pur-
susnce Of thst verbal release Jos. Biaisdell and
the defendant since bis fathers death. had been
In the possession and occupation OF the prop
erty in question and had thereby gained title
by adverse possession.
Deasy 4 Higgins Wiswell & King
for Pf. for Def,
Thursday, April 81.
Fss; Day. There was no session OF court.
Friday. April -.
The case Of Simpson vs.. Blsi-dell was re-
day. Verdict for the plaintiff.
George ;. Frost Vs.. Andrew Stafford. The
plaintiff resides In Dover. y. H.. the defend
ant Al Bar HaFbor. This was an action OF re-
pIeNin To recover possession OF horse owned
by plaintiff snd stolen from him September 9.
~. At the time thst thi. horse was stolen
other horse. were stolen from the same
city. The defendant !, the proprietor OF
4 livery stable at Bar Hsrbor, snd bought
the horse In question OF one Narney Of
Bangor. soon after the stealing the plaintiff
employed detectives TO search for the horse
aud he was traced to different places In the
State Of Maine. but at las, all trace wa. lost.
True found. as he thought. the right horse at
Bar Harhor The plaintiff immediately went
To that place sni there identified the horse As
his and upon the refusal OF the defendsn, 10
give him up, the plaintiff. June 8. 1891. re-
ple,ied the horse and took him to his home at
Dover, y. II. The defendant claimed that the
plaintiff wa mistaken in his Identification Of
the horse; that the horse repie,ied had no re-
-emhauce 10 the horse stolen a. described BY
the plaintiff The issue in The case ws- prac-
ticslly follows: Whether the hor-e re-
plcyied at Bar uarbor was the same horse
formerly owned by the plaintif and stolen
from his stable.
John A. Peters, Jr +. Clark
for Pin for Def
saturday. April %
The case OF Frost ". stsford was resumed
sni given 10 the jury about noon. Verdict for
pl,in;tf.
Geo. +. Morn. V. T. II s,ratton and Freed
lie. Cottage. Thi. Wa. An sclion To enforce u
Hen claim for labor snd msters- furnished BY
the plaintiff IN the construction OF the cottage
The date OF the lat work a. clsimed By the
plsin,if wa. November I. 1891, being one-half
days labor on the chimneys. The defence
VS.. that the mason work was all finished at
the time OF the completion OF the building snd
therefore the lien not ses-onshly taken.
The case was withdrawn from the jury snd
reported to the law court for full determine
ton.
&. I. Dutton b. r. Tracy.
for Plf, Deasy 4 Higgins
for Def.
Monday, April -.
George f.. Norris vs.. J. T.. Clark and Can.
nell Cottsse. The issue IN this case was sub
slantially the ssme 81 10 the case OF Norris vs.
Stra,ton snd Freddy cottage. The plaintiff
claimed lhst he last labor wa. done Noyem-
Der IL, 1891. The defence vas that the work
wss completed 81 sn earlier dste and for thsi
reason the lien not taken in season 10 be
vail IN r,ta sal m ha
law court for full determination.
Geo. L. button b. F.. Tracy
for Pm. for Def.
The next case on the civil list. Smith vs..
Melon Il Shields, having been settled as about
To 20 TO trial. the break In the time was taken
up with criminal business the frat case being
stste v. Day. An indictment for assault and
battery. The respondent /. resident OF
Bucksport. The facts In brief were as fol-
lows: Sometime in the month Of October last
the respondent and one VI addocks had trouble
In reference 10 the location OF line fence
during the alteration the respondent ordered
Msddocks from his (respOndents) premises
and upon Aaddocks' refusal to leave the re
spondeDt committed the alleged assault and bat
spondeut. but by way OF defence set up Il plea
Of justification. Verdict guilty. As soon as
the verdict was rendered. the County Attorney
moved for sentence and the court imposed
fine Of $40 without costs.
County Attorney spoford BIT sowle
for State. for Resp.
State V. Daniel W. Winchester. This VA.
All Indictment for receiving stolen goods TIL,
respondent is resident OF Surry. About thu
middle Of last March vessels at anchor In Pat.
tens bay. so-called, in the town Of Surry, wer,
broken into and property taken. Not long al
ter the stealing. one Harry Webber was arres I
ed for the crime and NJ the hearing pleadet
guilty and was bound over to the Suprem,
court. Weber and his brother, W no was al
the State. Harry Webber testified that abou
the middle Of March, 1892. he and bis brothe
and one Omar Stevens broke and entered tn,
vessels moored in Patterns bay and took there
from canvass, oakum. whitehead. rope. oil an,
dishes; that they carried the stuff to the re
| sron6ent's house and assisted by him secrete,
| 1t therein; that respondent intended to use tn
stolen property on u boat which he (respond
| ent) was having built that when the theft W a
| discovered the stuff was returned to the YES
sells but the canvass having been ripped up II
strips was sunk In the harbor: that Winches
| ter knew the goods were stolen. encourage
them in the crime and aided them In conceal
ing the property. Other testimony was intro
duced to prove the respondents knowledg