Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1894-01-25
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
January Term-Trial of Causes Many
Settled Out of Court-A Busy Term

! plaintiffs reside In Gouldsboro: the defendan
in Boston. Some years ago Flint, by fore
closure of mortgage came into possession o.
the boats, canoes and sporting property OF r
Pendleton. Early in 81 the plaintiffs pur
chased the property. offering So 500. for all the
mortgage called for, or $500 for all Neal had
on list, this list containing all that he (Nesr
| knew to be there.
| The latter offer was accepted. After taking
! possession OF the property. much Of It, a. per
| list, II was alleged, was missing. The suit was
| brought 10 recover value of the difference The
case was continued into Friday.
! Verdict for plaintiffs In the sum OF sI42 IS.
Peters and Wood for plaintiff; Deasy and
King for defendant.
fridsy afternoon petition for review was
| heard by the judge, Mrs Amos circuit being
the petitioner and Angle \. Foss. Jennie +.
| Springer and Palma &. Springer respondents.
The action vas originally brought 10 recover
| title snd possession TO r tract OF land in Ham
cock; defendant failed to appear. and was de-
| fsulted. After hearing. review was granted
snd a new sction will be granted al the next
| term.
All the cases assigned for Saturday were
setled out OF court, and the court adjourned
until Monday.
The case OF Herbert 7. Higgins vs.. Willard
| l.. Hsmor was tried on Monday. This was an
action OF trespass. The plaintiff. who resides
on the easlerly side OF Main street, Bar Har.
Dor, claimed that the defendant. In widening
the street. cut strip from the front OF his
lawn. and moved the sidewalk over upon his
premises from five to seven feet beyond the
street limits the width OF hi lot.
The defendant admitted the acts complained
Of, but justified road commissioner OF the
town OF Eden. and Clsmed that the extension
was not made beyond the limits OF the street
a. regularly laid out The plaintiff. on the
other hand, contended that the location wss
Invalid.
At the conclusion OF the evidence W hich
wa, entirely documentary, the was with
drawn from the jury and reported 10 the law
court with the stipulation that. II the records
introduced show the existence OF way suff-
cient TO justify the defendant in making a side
walk within the limits described therein.
judgment shall be entered for The defendant,
the other defense. set up by the defendant.
Wood sni King for plaiutif; Deasy 4 nig-
gin, for defendant.
Another ac'ion, brought by samuel \. Hig-
gins against the same defendant and involving
the same state Of facts, was continued until
next term.
The ease OF Gideon l.. Joy v. John b. Red
msu vs., called on Tuesday. Thi. was an
action % trover TO recover the valr~ VI ten
cord 81 wood
In June. 1855. the defendant. 4. the assignee
Of Colin Mckenzie. took possession Of y lot OF
wood " hich 1t VS., claimed the plaintiff had
soli 10 Mckenzie urior to the lstter's In
>o!ytucy.
The plaintiff admitted having sold Mckenzie
lot 81 wood. FOR which be received $50 but
claimed that that particular lot was delivered
And hAuled away and that he subsequently cut
second 10, which Wa. placed in the same Ioca-
ton, and that Il Wa the latter wood which
was taken hy the defendant Verdict for the
plaintiff for s236i Hale 4 Hamiin for plain.
tn; King for defendant,
Colin Mckenzie v. John b. Redmau An
action q Teplcyu 70 recover the value OF
double team wagon. which The plaintiff claim
ed the defendant hsd wrongfuly taken. The
defendant took possession OF the wagon in
May, 1888, l. the assignee OF the plaintiff. The
latter claimed that the wagon was exempt
under the statute.
The defendant introduced testimony TO show
that Mckenzie bad two wagons At the time OF
hi- Insolvency, and that he Wa. requested by
The assignee 10 select " hich be would kcep. but
that NJ eheuzie claimed the right TO retain both.
and that the assignee took possession OF the
wsgon Ia suit. Mckenzie denied that be rep
resented 10 the assignee that be w2> the
owner q both wagons, and claimed that the
second was the property OF neighbor, from
whom Ne had borrowed ii.
Verdict for defendant. Hale i Hamlin for
plau,fT hing for defendant.
Colin {. Mckenzie, by next friend. vs. John
d. kednan. An sciion Of replevin to recover
the value Of one blacA horse, five Year, OLD,
called "Dsrkie," one bay horse nine years old.
called "the Keith horse and one two
whee 81 road cart. all valued 81 SECS.
Colin Mckenzie, the father of plaintiff, went
into Insolvency in March, 1888. and the horses
and cart, which were al the homestead OF the
father, We're taken possession Of by the de-
tendant a. assignee. the property Of the
insoiyent.
The plaintiff claim, to have purchased the
black horse from Jeremish Hurley, the Keith
horse from George Crosby, and the road cart
from biz fsther.
The trial Of the case was continued Wedne.-
day morning. and the ease wss submitted 10
the jury al the coming In Of the court in the
afternoon. After being out half an hour, the
jury returned verdict for the plaintiff, and
for damages assessed at 81.
Hale 4 Hamlin for plaintiff. A. W. King
for defendant