Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1892-04-21
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.


April Term, 1899.
LrcILIUs A. EMERY, Justice Presiding.
| JOHN F. kSowLToN Clerk.
JAMES W. PATTERSON, Sheriff.
r. T. sfoFFoRD, County Attorney.
ALBERT II. SMALL. Stenographer.
FRED SWEET Messenger
Wednesday. April 10.
The first business OF the day was the organ
king Of the traverse juries. The juries are
impaneled as follows
FIRST TRAVERSE JURY.
j. Wesley Eldridge. foreman, Bucksport;
Melville l.. Allen, Mt. Desert; Jacob W. Car
roll. fremont; Melville Condor. Brooksville;
James l.. Cook. Ellsworth; Seth W. Fifeld,
A. Gaspar, Surry; George W Googins. Han
cock; Rufus Goss, Ellsworth; Robert b. Gray,
Penobscot; Roscoe d. Gray. Sedgwiek.
SECOND TRAVERSE JURY.
{. +. Morrison, foreman. Ellsworth: Frank
p. Green. Buehill Augustus Gross. Deer Isle;
Orrin P. Hartman. Orland: Moses Hawkins.
Sullivan; Edwin II. Higgins, Eden; Seth J.
Eodgkins. Lamoine; Edwin Parker, BROOKLYN;
Jesse II. Pease, fremont; A. S. Rolf, Goulds-
boro; William G. Sargent, Castine Otis
Springer, Franklin.
suPERNUMERARIEs.
Curtis r. Foster, Ellsworth; b. +. Atherton.
Mt Desert; John W. Corners. Eden; George
2. Goodwin. Dedham.
The first case for trial was Fred T. Sargent
vs.. Charles c. Hutchings. This was an action
of assumpsit. The parties reside in the town
OF Gouldsboro. The plaintiff claimed that in
the year ISIS he bonded TO the defendant Ger.
tain lots Of land situated in Gouldsboro aud
that early in the next year executed and de-
ltvered deeds OF the same to the defendant;
that the defendant had never paid him for the
lots and refused so 10 do. The defence was
that the plaintiff conveyed the land in ques-
ton to the defendant in trust for the ''Gould.-
boro Land Improvement Co." OF which cor
porston the defendant was member: that
the plaintiff was 10 receive pay for his land in
stock of the company; that stock bad been ten
dered the plaintiff by the defendant In pay
ment for the land and that the plaintiff refas-
ed TO accept the same.
John A. Peters. Jr. Deasy i Higgins.
for Pin. b. f. Tracy
for Deft.
Thursday, April IA.
The case OF Sargent vs.. Ilutchings was re-
sumed this morning aud WAS pot given to the
jury until quite late In the afternoon.
The next case was Nancy +. JOY, Apprt. vs.
Gfindstone Neck Water Co. Thi- wa. An sp-
peal from the award OF the county commits
siouer> in assessing damage. on lot OF land
~, IA n
the defendants under their charter crossed IN
laying their water pipe. The parties belong
in the town Of Gould.boro. The land in que,-
ton |. lot containing about two and one-haf
acres situated st the head of Winter Harbor 10
the same town and about midway between the
village Of Winter Iiarbor anG the settlement at
Grindstone Neck. so-csled The plaintiff
claimed that the lot was valuable one for 4
summer residence aud that by reason of The
incumbrsnce placed upon IL by the Water 60.
it, value had been greatly deprecated snd the
chsnces OF sale lcssened. The defence was
that the award OF the county commissioners
$500. Was sufficiently large Is the land bad no
such value As was ascribed to il hy the plain
tif. and that Furthermore the laying % the
water pipe across the lot wa- OF no material
injury to the same but rather a benefit a.
1t made !, easier 10 obtain supply OF pure
water for any cottage thst might be bult
thereon. Much testimony was introduced A.
10 the value OF land in The vicinity. and e-pec-
Tally a. 10 The value Of This particular lot.
peass 4 Higgins W!>well & King
for Pf. for Def.
Friday April ID,
The jury in the ease OF Sargent - Hutch
ings. reported. Verdict for plaintiff for
1922 -
The case Of joy. Apprt. vs.. Grind,toDe Neck
Water Co. wa. then resumed aud continued
through the day.
In the afternoon the Grand Jury reported
and ihi- closing their term Of service they we're
fnslly discharged. The number OF indicim, nj.
found i sixteen as follows: Assault and bat
terry, 3; breaking and entering snd larceny /
embezzement, ! ; larceny, 4; liquor ); receis-
ing stolen goods. >.
Saturday, April Is.
The jury in the case OF JOY. Appl'i W.
birthstone Neck Water Co. reported YER
Dict for the plaintiff in the sum OF si6e 20,
The issue ia thi- ease Wa the same II. in No.
no t,rin5.,nn. Neck Water 10 Amir :.
Nancy +. JOY which was decided by the same
verdict
Chsrlr- r. Kingsley by guardian vs. Goud--
boro Land Improvement Co. Thi. was an
lion o. trt--pa-- Yuare cldHsnm. The plaintiff
claimed that the defendant corporation entered
without authority upon plaintiffs land and
buIli road thereon and maintained and used
II without legal right. The defence was that
there Wa parol permission given by the
piaintih 10 the defendant 10 cross the lot and
that there "as right Of WAY by necessity over
the said premises and therefore the defendant
The lot IN question Is IN the town OF Goud--
boro on Grindstone Neck. so-called, snd near
the property otthe Gouldsboro Land Improve
ment 60. lhe case was reported TO the Law
Court on the questions OF la" involved.
J. A. Peters. Jr B. f Tracy
for I'm. Tor Den.
Mr. Melville l.. Alien OF The first traverse
jury. and Messrs. Augusta. Gross and W illam
u. Sargent Of the second traverse Jury were
excused
noon.
Nord,e arrilI.
~
va. ~ a '''''' - u .'l'a l'
~