Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1894-07-12

and Joseph Holt who made a plan OF
the township to conform to their survey,
the correctness OF which was attested to
as follows:
1--WE the subscribers being employed by the
committee appointed by the propretors of the
six townships of land lately granted by the
great and good court of the Province of the
Massachusetts Bay to one Mr. David Marsh
aud $50 others between Penebscot river, and the
river st. Croix, upon certain conditions to
measure, survey and lay out the same, have
according to our best skill and Judgment per
formed the said work according as 1t Is delineat-
ed In the above plat"
BESJ. JOHNSON, s,,u,o,...,
JOSEPH HOLT, !
Sept. g. 1902.
The plan referred to and now in the
archives of Massachusetts, made Union
river the boundary line of No.6 on the east.
There is another plan from a survey of
No. g made by Bailey Bartlett in 1885,
which SHOWS the complete outline OF
the township, courses and distances
being precisely the same as are found on
the plan OF 1852 | have a tracing of this
plan OF No. 8, sent me by the arehive
clerk OF Massachusetts which can be seen
in the register of deeds Office in Els
worth, and it plainly shows that Union
river was the eastern boundary line OF
township No. 6.
In the famous" lawsuit brought in
1911 ny lHt vi NO U,
Theodore Jones where the plaintiffs
claimed a lot of land on the east side of
Union river as being on township No. 6
fsee st h vol. of maine Historical Maya
zine" page POP, or 18th Massachusetts Re-
ports, page 1874, they in support OF their
title put into the case resolves of the gem
eral court of Massachusetts, viz, of
March ,, 1862, March II, 1855, Nov.
Il, 1855, another of June %, 1888. The
original plans and the de r'ntion of the
township filed with tn $ II seems
were not put into the i II the rec
ords now in the arch If Massac hui
sets are correct, none OF those referred
to above, or that have been found to
date, give a description by metes and
bounds OF this township.
quote from a letter from the arehive
clerk, las to the bounds of No. 6, clerks
have looked and | have looked, but OF no
avail. All the references you gave have
been examined. Every reference to the
townships, or plans OF the townships, or
of the wns-anything that could pos
sihly lead up to it, has been followed out
and gone over but with no success. We
found in a resolve, mention of descrip-
ton of the township that accompanied
the plan, but no description. At some
time or OF her it was taken from the file,
but " here it is now, is absolutely beyond
us.
/
portant pieces of evidence rs the descrlp-
ton of his township by metes and bounds
and the plan made from it by the origi-
nal surveyors put into the case by
the plaintiffs, whose record title
would have then been made perfect. The
report of the case shows that it was not
done. The answer may be that it was adj
mitted at the trial that the demanded
premises were within the limits of No.
and that in consequence it was not nee
essary but why then was this admission
made il the plaintiffs township did not
cross the river, and they did not have the
record title? How does it happen that
the owners of No. 8 at that early day did
not know that they had no land on the
east side of Union river?
A. sustaining the plan 'now discover
ed of No. 6 we again call up the old plan
in Hale x Hamlin's office which carries
all the settlers lots of No. I bordering on
the east side to the river, and which
shows no part OF No. on the east side of
Union river, so also the act of lncorpora-
ton of Ellsworth shows the same thing
The inhabitants of No. : petitioned to
be incorporated into town in 1913 and
received their charter in 1900.
The fact too that no conveyance can be
found from the proprietors of No. to
any one, of land on the east side OF the
river tends to confirm the evidence that
they had none to convey.
Ii may be impossible at this late day to
get at the true reason for so serious a
mistake or blunder being made, affecting
the title at that time to the most I'M
portant and most valuable part of the
town. We can only guess at the cause.
II the written description OF the town
ship which was made part of the grant
by the reference to it had not been
distracted from the files or they had
found their deed or grant, for ! cannot
help believing the general court had EN-
bodied the desert ption in one after the
first or second survey, the mistake would
not probably have been made
We think that the French grant lies at
the bottom of this egregious error. Prior
to 17SS, V hen this grant was first run out
it does not appear that there was any
contention or trouble or uncertainty
about boundary lines. This grant ar BIZ
trarilv and unjustly took away he whole
OF Trenton as it was then and cut into at
least three other townships, taking liberal
slices from each. The grant too was run
out without regard to town lines a. has
already been noted. 1t unsettled all the
calculations and operations OF all the
associations OF proprietors affected by 1t
All their previous surveys and runnIng-
of sttt lers' lots were ignored. 1t inter
fered with township lines, and as time
rolled on Wit hout much thought on the
f
their own lots and these changed from
the original surveys, it produced con
fusion and uncertainty which | think is
the prime and first cause of this unfortu-
nate disturbance i'll boundary lines.
1t will be recolected that when Peters
run out he French grant he run from he
northN est corner of No 6 down " hat was
supposed to be and probably vas the
north line of No. Is, south sixty degs. east
to Union river, then We cross the river
and run 176 rods following the samt
course to stake and stones that stand
in Meltiah Jordan's field. No. 6 line is
not mentioned after reaching the river
but Peters when he run out No. /, tive
years before, run down from the SAME
northwest corner of No. 8, six miles
and eighty five rods to the southeast cor
ner of No. s. Whether the first line fol
lowed the last one described as running
from the northwes corner OF No, 6, sc
far as it went, viz: six miles and eighty
five rods, | am unable to say; but the
supposton is that it did. If the north
east corner of No. & WAS at the river
+ Peters running from the northwest cor
ner of No 6, six miles and eighty-tiv
1 rods to the northeast corner, would only