Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1898-02-09

N
to the jury by Judge Emery.
| 1t was after o'clock hen the jury re-
tired; it 30 Friday morning when
it came into court with verdict of
$500 for the plaintiff.
| ELLINGTON VS.. LORD.
The case Of Lewis Ellington vs.. Night
Officer Hiram Lord, of Ellsworth, for lille
gal arrest and imprisonment, was tried
Friday.
In December last Burlington WAS ar
rested by Officer Lord in George B4ker's
billiard room, pri,oned in the county
Jail over night, aud on the following
day arraigned i'll the Ellsworth mInci-
pal court on charge OF intox jcatIon.
The arrest was made at the instance of
Mr. Baker, with whom Ellington had
trouble
The prosecution offered evidence to
show that Ellington was not intoxicated
and had made no distur bance at the time
of the arrest. The defense alleged hat
Officer Lord was acting in his official
capacity. The plaintiff had twice been
ordered to leave the billiard room, and
refused to do so.
d. E. Hurley and O. F. Fellows for
plaintiff; Hale & Hamlin for defendant.
The jury was out from 2 p. m. Friday o
7.30 a. m. Saturday, and returned yer.
| dict for defendant.
On this jury was E. F. Redman, Of Els
worth, who was summoned from the
| court room as talesman in the morning
This jury was discharged Saturday morn
ing.
JOY VS.. JOY.
The last trial OF the term WAS Joy vs..
JOY, in which Watson NJ. Joy sues his
father, Stephen Decatur Joy, for personal
services on the defendants farm since
plaintiff attained his majority, twelve
| years ago.
Plaintiff alleged that at the time he was
| twenty one, and at different times sub
sequently, when he wished to leave home
to find employment elsewhere, his father
induced him to remain. Though there
had been no agreement, it had always
| been understood by the family that he
was to receive the farm, and he remained
with that understanding. Recently he
had been asked by his father to "sign
off, and refused, asking that some
arrangement could be made by which
his interest could be secured.
The defendant claimed that at the time
the plaintiff became OF age, they entered
into specific contract by which he was
to receive his board and clothing, and
500 year, which contract had never
been terminated. He introduced as
payments made to his son to the full
amount OF contract alleged. He claimed
further that his son had enjoyed more
than the usual privileges allowed to farm
hands. He admitted on rossexamina
ton that there had been tacit under
standing that Watson was to have the
farm.
A. W. King appeared for plaintiff, G. B.
Stuart for defendant.
The case went to the jury early Satur-
day afternoon. The jury came in at s
O'Clock with a verdict of S426 IS for plain
tiff.
The jury was then discharged, and court
adjourned until Tuesday morning.
Tuesday and Wednesday were occupied
in hearings before the court, those Of the
most general interest being on the two
motions to set aside verdcts on the
ground that juries had been unduly in
huenced.
DIVORCES DECREED.
The following divorces were decreed
during the term:
Anna Maud Marshall, OF fremont,
libellant, vs. George. NJ. Marshall; gross
and confirmed habits Of intox ication.
Custody OF children decreed to libellant.
French for libelant.
Georgia S. Thomas, OF Eden, libelant,
VS.. Charles s. Thomas; utter desertion.
Libelant's name changed to Georgia A
Fernald. Giles for libelant.
Henrietta Dyer, OF Ellsworth, libelant,
VS.. Alexander B. Dyer; adultery. Burn
ham for libellant.
Eva Lillian Clark, of Mt. Desert, libel
liant, vs. Henry Clark, Of Franklin cruel
and abusive treat ment. Deasy for libel
/ liant.
THE ASSIGNED LIST.
Following is the record of disposal of
cases on the assigned list:
PASS, Campbell Chase CIR Co. Peters; King,
Chase. Verdict for pantiT, 100,
263i, Ellington Lord. Hurley Hale 4 Ham
lin. Verdict for defendant.
265O. Joy joy. King; Stuart Verdict for
plaintiff, s426.5s.
Equity
2o3. Mcfarland Kingsley. Deasy, Wood.
Continued
PA. Gray Byrncs. stuart; Hurley Burn.
ham. Continued.