Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1900-10-24

JAMES HILL. GouidsbOrU.
StenOgrapher-C. o. BARRows, Portland.
Messenger-F. Il. TILDEN.
The October term Of the supreme judi
cial court for Hancock county was finally
adjourned yesterday, the thirteenth day.
One hundred and three cases came off
the civil docket this term-sixty-three by
judgment, forty by entry of neither
party. Twelve divorces were decreed.
There were 122 new entries, which is more
than the average number.
There were three jury trials during the
term-one civil case. one equity case and
one criminal case.
The clerk received s4,14O from liquor
fines.
SELLERS CLEMENT SANDER CASE.
The suit of Mrs. Eva NJ. Sellers, of
| Penobscot, against William b. Clement,
OF the same town, for SANDER, was OF an
| unusual nature, and attracted much at
| tention.
Mrs. Sellers, who is the wife OF George
L. Sellers, proprietor OF the hotel at
prosperous business man, for 0,Oco
| damages for Islander. Mrs. Sellers was
| represented In court by II. II. Patten, OF
Bangor, and o. F. Fellows, OF Bucksport,
and Mr.. Clement by E. E. Chase, OF
BlnehilI, and A. W. King. of Ellsworth.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant
was the author Of anonymous letters
written to her and her husband, attack
| ing her character, and couched in inde-
cent and insulting language; that he also
publicly slandered her In stores and other
places in the town OF Penobscot, accus-
| ing her OF criminal intimacy with travel
ling men who stop at the Sellers hotel,
and using insulting and indecent Ian
| guage concerning her.
| The defense set up a plea of insanity, to
meet which the prosecution attempted to
| show by the evidence that the defendant
| had been addicted to the immoderate use
of liquor, aud that the insanity alleged
was really the result OF the excessive use
OF liquor. Expert testimony was heard
on both sides bearing on Mr.. Clements
mental condition aud his responsibility
for his words.
An important ruling, which the law
court may be called to pass upon. was
made oy Chief Justice Wisweil in his
charge to the jury in this case. He in
structed the jury that IL the defendant,
| when he made the defamatory statements
regarding the plaintiff, was insane to
such degree that he did not know the
meaning Of the words used, and 1t was
known to his hearers that he WAS insane,
then there would be no damage and no
malice; 1t would be a complete defense.
But IL it was not known to his hearers
when he spoke the defamatory words that
he WAS insane, then there would be
damage, even though at the time the
defendant himself did not know what he
was saying.
The case went to the jury at II o'clock
| Friday morning. At 3. 20 O'Clock the jury
returned verdict Of 5000 for plaintiff.
new trial.
| TRIBOU VS.. TRIBOU
Another case of peculiar interest tried
| last week was that OF Tribou VS.. Tribou,
which went on trial Immediately after
the Islander case went to the jury. This
was suit in equity, involving property
| to the value Of 0,OO0. The Complainant
York, and the respondent, Capt. Fred
erick c. Tribou, OF South Paris, Me. Miss
Tribou asked to have certain deeds to real
aud personal property, made by her to
the respondent, set aside on the ground
that she was unduly influenced by false
papers.
The complainant Is the granddaug hter
OF the late SiIas X. Tribou, OF Bucksport,
who died in 1899, leaving an estate which
the inventory shows to be worth $50 600,
about S5, 600 of which is in real estate aud
the balance In bonds and securities.
Silas K. Tribou had three children-
| Charles h., the father OF The com a inant
| in this case, Frederick c., the respondent,
and Rebecca, who lives with her brother
in South Paris. By the will of Silas X.
Tribou, executed 1887. the property was
about equally divided among his three
children. Charles, however, the father of
the complainant, died before his father
and the daughter, the sole heir, came int
the estate OF her father under her grand
fathers will. The respondent, however,
claims that there was a codicil to the will
NV w in ha hor Of ,orln II "A
| revert at his death to Frederick G. and
| Rebecca.
Soon after the death of her grandfather,
Miss Tribou's uncle invited her to visit
| him at his home in South Paris, which
she did, remaining there about ten days.
1t was during this visit, she alleges, that
her uncle induced her, by misrepres enta
ton and duress, to sign away all her
right, title and interest in her grand
fathers estate, and to give him quit
claim deed OF the same for $4,000, or
| about one half W hat the complainant now
alleges to be her share Of the estate.
The complainant testified that her uncle
told her she could not leave his house
until she did sign the papers, working
her up to state bordering on nervous
prostration, from which she has not yet
recovered, and that she finally did sign
the papers without knowing their con-
tents. She testified that she signed the
papers for the purpose of getting out of
her uncle's house--that she would have
signed anything to get away from him.
The respondent denied that undue in
f1uence had been used to induce NJ ISIS
Tribou to sign the deed and bill of sale, or
that the value of the estate was misrepre-
sented or concealed from her; also that
certain bills against the estate materially
lessened her share in it. The case was
submitted to the jury on two questions in
issue:
!. Was the complainant induced or COM
PEELED by undue influence. duress, fraud, fraud.
ulent misrepresentation or fraudulent conceal.
ment upon the part of the responder. to execute
| and deliver to the respondent the deed and bill
Of sale referred to In the plaintiffs bill?
2. Were said deed and bill of sale given
without consideration, or was the consideration,
II any, for said Instruments, so grossly made
quate under all the circumstances that the same
should not be regarded by court of equity, in
accordance with the Instructions given, as a
valid consideration for the transaction?