The Republican journal., 1900-10-04
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
A. r. Savage, Justice, Presiding.

Land Co.. trustee, have been settled. and
entered neither party. The actions were
brought to recover wages of workmen in
building roads, etc., Page being the con-
tractor.
Mary E. Hollis, appellant VS.. Geo. r.
Bagley; action of trespass, in taking a.
section OF fence from the plaintiffs prem
lses. The case was entered in the Belfast
Police Court, but was appealed on a point
OF law. The case was tried before a iurv
and verdict rendered for the plaintiff for
500. Brown for plaintiff THOMPSON for
defendant
The Cottrell will case was re-opened
Thursday morning Chester W. Cottrell
was recalled and gave in some detail a
statement of the amounts each of the sons
had received from their father. He said
Porter had lived on the farm several wears.
but that the farm has never been in his
name and is now part of the mothers
estate Judson was set up in the clothing
manufacturing business. The $1,000 which
he is said to have received included the
store, which is now part of the estate, and
the machinery, which his father sold after
the business failed Judson received no bene-
ut from the sale. He Chester received
$4,000 in money. Emery has had his living
at MS fathers house all his life, and his
famIlys living since his marriage. He has
been paid $500 per day for all his work for
MS father and has put the money in the
bank. A stenographers report of the evil
dence at the hearing on Mr.. Cottrell's will
was introduced showing that Mrs Cottrell
then said that she should not see any of her
children suffer. A. E. Littleield, ESQ. of
Rockland ably argued the case for the
appellants and w. H. Mcclellan, Esq, for
the appellee. Judge Savage instructed the
jury that they were to answer three ques-
tions. LIST. Was the will legally executed?
He explained the law relating to the making
of wills and reviewed the evidence in the
case. ID Was the teStator unduly intlu-
enced in making the will? The jury, he
said, were not to deal with the justice or
wisdom of any division of the property, or
the condition of the boys These points
were only to be taken IN their bearing on
the main question. A testator may seek
advice from any source, but the mind must
not be so prejudiced as to make it the will
of another and not of the testator Was
the will of another person SO eXerted as to
supplant hers in the matter? AS to Spirit
ualism, whether or not the Court OF jlry
believes in it, the question is, did Mrs. Cot
trell believe in it, and if so, did it influence
hot
wish. 1t must be shown that she not only
consulted with the spirits in regard to the
disposition of her property, but that She
acted under what she considered to be their
direction. Their influence must be such
as to destroy the effect of her own will and
make the document the will IF another.
Sd Was this instrument the last will and
testament of Amelia J. Cottrell? The
Court instructed the jury that this question
included the other two and its answer
would depend upon the answer to them
The case was given to the jury at about
12.30 O'Clock p. m and they remained ont II
hours. They We're released by order of the
presiding Judge at 1870 a. IN. Friday. They
agreed as to the legality OF the making of
the will, but disagreed on the question of
undue influence.
The jurors not ON the Cottrel case were
discharged Thursday forenoon, and those
who were on it were discharged after re-
porting Friday morning.
The Weeks & Potter Co. VS.. Tilton \.
Elliott. Appeal from the decree of the In
solvency Court, granting a discharge to the
defendant. The appeal is dismissed; de-
cree of Insolvency Court affirmed. William
son for plaintiff. Brown, il. for defendant
Chas. A. Bradford VS.. Elizabeth Hawkins; :;
action to recover the cost of building a sec
ton of line fence between adjoining farms
in Knox. The case was sent to the Law
Court on facts agreed at the January term,
1900, but was dismissed from the Law dock
ct. The case is again sent to Law Court on
facts agreed
Emery French and others, pet, vs. Hud-
son French and others; petition for parti-
ton of land in Lincolnville. At the Jan
uary term, 1900, Geo. E. johnson, r. B.
Sherman and A. F. Hahn were appointed
commissioners to make partition. The COM
lcpOI lCu HAVING Hd'lt tIic httl u
tion and Judgment was entered accordingly
Dunton & Dunton for plaintiffs. Thomp-
son for defendants.
Wilmot L. Gray VS.. f. S. Hollis, action to
recover for taxes on property in Troy
judgment for the amount of tax and costs.
Dunton l. Dunton for plaintiff. Libby for
defendant.
Rebecca Smith ct ais. VS.. Mary E. Shute
ct ais. petition for partition of real estate
in Prospect 0. T. Fellows, J. W. Brock
and Andrew Bennett appointed commission
ers to make the partition.
Edgar f. Hanson, James W. Wallace and
F. A. Greer, in equity. VS.. the Cream Pub.
Co.; bill in equity to have receiver APP
pointed. The bill was filed in May, 1898.
The defendants replied that the business
was ON paying basis and that any inter-
ruption would work harm and loss to credi-
tors and subscribers. The case was refer
red to Judge Fogler, who appointed Frank
|. Wilson receiver, with authority to con-
tinue the business of the corporation. The
receiver filed list of assets and petition
for leave to sell at public auction. April 20,
1899, Judge Fogler, after hearing, author
lied the receiver to sell the property of the
corporation. The receiver also petitioned
leave to begin actions against certain sub