The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1896-01-23
Supreme Judicial Court.
JUDGE FOSTER PRESIDING.

Talbot, exceptions were filed and allowed.
NJ Hillman and w. W. Seavey motion for
new trial has been filed.
Vallie B. Williamson vs.. Patrick Norton.
Action on a mortgage on real estate in Bel
fast. Amount adjudged due on the mort
gage, S1S II. Joseph Williamson, Jr., for
plaintiff.
Evelyn Mudgett vs.. Richard R. Paul and
Almon Kellar. Action for trespass in cut
ting wood on land in Brooks claimed by
plaintiff. Defendant also claimed the land.
+ The lines as claimed by the parties are about
4 II rods apart. At the April term, 1895, the
Court appointed NJ. S, Stiles and Fl P. Far
row surveyors to run the lines, and they
made plan showing the lines as claimed
by the plaintiff and defendant. Wednesday
forenoon, Jan. 18th, the jury visited the
+ premises, and the case was heard Wednes-
day afternoon and Thursday forenoon, and
the Jury returned a verdict for defendant,
i with a special finding that the western line
on the Farrow plan, that claimed by the de-
PENDANT, is the correct line. Motion for new
trial filed, and case goes to law court. Will
hanson for plaintiff. Mcclellan for defend
ant.
Frederic R. Page VS.. Petit Manan Land
and Industrial Co. Action on contract for
building roads at Petit Manan. Plaintiff asked
leave to amend the writ by striking out the
words land IndustriaP' in the title of the
defendant corporation. The contract was
made with the Petit Manan Land Co, which
| corporation afterwards sold it's real estate,
assets and liabilities to the Petit Land and
! Industrial Co, but still continues its Or
ganiZation. Defendants claim that while
they assumed the liabilities of the old com
| pany they do not assume any not recognized
| by them. The Court ruled that the change
| asked for would change the defendant to the
suit, and that there had been no service on
the Land Company, although one man is
clerk of both corporations. Montgomery and
| Brown for plaintiff. Fogler and Fogg for
| defendant.
Petit Manan Land Co. vs.. Frederick r.
| Page. Action for breach of contract. The
defendant contracted to build certain high
| ways on Petit Manan Point, and the PLAIN
billS oldlIIl ile hiu ucl VI tut
contract. The case was opened by Mr.. Fogg
for the plaintiffs, but was continued before
any evidence was presented on account of
being counter suit to Page VS.. Petit Manan
Land Co. Fogler and Fogg for plaintiffs.
Montgomery and Brown for defendant
Chas. E. Mcneil vs.. Fremont Pendleton
and nine others. Defendants are members
of a cJttprS' DIa
claims that they prevailed upon his employ
ers, the Mt. Waldo Granite Co., to discharge
him from their employ, in which he had been
for % years. Defendants entered a demur-
rer, that if the defendants are liable for in
terfering with any one it is with the granite
company and not the plaintiff as they have
used no intimidation towards him, he being
murrer and the case goes to the Law Court.
Dunton for plaintiff. Foger and Thompson
for defendants.
Nelson 7. Norcross VS.. Ernest L. Sprague
The plaintiff belongs in Cleveland, Ohio,
and in the summer of 1881 boarded with the
defendants parents, Joseph A. and
Lycena Sprague Of Islesboro. The plain
tiff loaned the parents $500, on which
they paid $780, At the time the loan
was made L. A. Knowlton of Belfast held
warrantee deed of the property on which
the Spragues lived, but had given them a
bond to reconvey on the payment of certain
promssory notes. When the notes were
paid MIR. knowlton decided the property, by
qultclaim deed, to the defendant. In a
suit of Norcross vs.. Joseph A. and Lycena
Sprague judgment was secured for the
amount due on the $500 note with interest
The suit against Ernest Sprague is for fraud
and to recover this judgment, the plaintiff
claiming that the transfer from Know lton to
the defendant was fraudulent, and made to
prevent the plaintiff from securing a claim
on the real estate. Defendant claims thar
the property was transferred in considera-
ton of money due him from his parents.
After the evidence was all in the case was
withdrawn from the jury and sent to the
Law Court on report. Brown for plaintiff.
Mcclellan for defendant.
Joseph A Sprague VS.. Nelson T. Norcross.
Action on account annexed for board wash
ing, etc. Plaintiff claims that defendant
came to his house in July, 1891, and remain
until October, period of 10 weeks, and al
though he was away part of the time he
occupied room at the house all the time.
The plaintiff charged price per week
higher than the regular rates of board in
1slesboro, by reason of extra labor in caring
for defendants room, getting his meals at
irregular hours, etc. The defendant offered
to be defaulted for 1914, which he allowed to
be fair price for the board and services
rendered. The jury returned verdict for
plaintiff for S54. Mcclellan for plaintiff.
Norcross pro Sc and Brown for defendant
Fred w. Brown, Jr., of Brooks was ex-
amined for admission to the bar Saturday.
He passed good examination and was adj
mitted.
IL. c. Pitcher VS.. Geo. H. Klmball and FL.
T. Jones. This case was opened SATURDAY.
morn ng and was given to the Jury about
O'Clock Monday afternoon. 1t is an action
on acc cunt for $3.50, for coal, agency and
wharfage of steamers owned or managed by
the defendants. The coal bills amounted to
$40 81 agency from April TO- 1898, to April
1, 1894, SOB: SO; wharfage, Il months, $40
The bills We're on account of steamers Vik-