Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1903-10-21
S. J. COURT.
CONTINUED from page II

A,cided his properly Det"een ms TWO
~ and made two farms, one of which
ss,.a smith. and the other the Consry
49,, The first quc,tion for the jury to
'.,aruine was where David Sellers put
~. boundary line between the two.
petore giving bis charge to the jury,
.s,s bsing the fret case, Judge Emery
s,,.av instructed the jurors as to their
duties
In summing up the cases the cour,
..hmitted three questions Ia the jury
Flrst; Is the southeast corner bornd OF
o,,,,h,s lot at the stake and stones as
.,.,med by Smith, or ut the corner OF the
sow.vsrd, as claimed by Conars?
7, n IL where lConary claimed, another
..os,ion arises: Was the fence erected In
NE road so as to obstruct passage? II SO
smitb had a right to remove IL. and hence
,he third question: In taking down bars
=, fences old Smith do any more damage
than was necessary to remove obstruc-
tionse
The Jury found the boundary where
Canary claimed, hence hs was not
guilty Of trespass, and verdict was re-
torned for the defendant IN the Smith ys.
Consry case.
The fence obstructed the road and Smith
used due care in removing 1t he therefore
was not guilty OF trespass and hence a
verdict for the defendant In Conary VS..
Smith case.
The real issue OF the controversy was to
decide the title to the strip In question,
which was given to Conary.
LIB. Deasy, OF Bar Hsrbor, was counsel
for Smith and e. r. spofford, OF Deer
Isle, for Conary.
NJ. F. Richards and J. G. Farrell, OF
Bar Harbor, were subpened for failure
10 appear before the grand jury and were
brought before the court and fined SO
each.
A.E. Corners, OF Bar Harbor, was SUBJ
pened and appeared before the court on
charge OF failure to appear before the
grand jury when summoned. He was
fined 80.
SATURDAY, OCT. II. y
The case OF Burrill VS.. West ct ais, was
given trial Saturday morning.
This was an action brought by Charles
q. Burrill against w. l.. West, of Belfast,
formerly OF Ellsworth, and George r.
Caldwell, to recover payment for several
notes given by West In 1895 In payment
for the property on School street used by
him as veterinary hospital and later con-
veyed by him to George R. Caldwell, who
took a quit-claim deed from West and
signed the notes remaining unpaid.
In December, 1901, the buildings were
destroyed by fire and the insurance was
paid to Caldwell, who expressed his in
tsntion to use the money to rebuild; this
be had been unable to due owing to
illness.
The plaintiff foreciosed his mortgage,
but claimed that the value OF the property,
after the buildings were burned, was in
sufficient to satisfy his claim, and conse-
quently brought suit on the notes.
Verdict was rendered for the defen-
danfs. l.. F. Giles for plaintiff; A. w.
King, q. B. Stuart for defendants.
The land case of Ida NJ. Carlisle VS..
Fra ces T. Moore was settled etween the
parties aiter trial OF tire case was begun.
The following Is the entry made: By
agreement VI The parties judgment is
rendered for ths plaintiff for all the land
described In the wal lying southwesterly
OF line described as !oliows: Beginning
alta split granite rock, on he Teddy pond
rnad
Bowden's corner, and at a corner Of the
fence; thence following the line OF the
fence about north 5lh degrees west to
Teddy pond.
A. W. King for Plaintiff; J. B. Redman
for defendant.
MONDAY, OCT. 10. v
The case OF Phillips vs.. wescott Yves
heard Monday morning.
This wes an action brought by II. B.
Phillips against Charles F. Wescott, OF
Bluehill, for trespass, to recover payment
Tor some twelve cords of manure taken
BY the defendant from farm in Blue
bill owned by the plaintiff.
The defendant flied an offer to default
In Inc sum of s6 which was not accepted
by the plaintiff.
Defense clsimed that he bought the
manure in good faith from Mr.. Gray, who
owl ed the farm previous TO the foreclos-
are OF tie plaintiff, End that mostof the
manure in question could be rigbtfuliy
sold by him, at it was 1 he product OF cat
lie fed from fodder brought on the
farm and not raised there.
The jury In answer TO questions found
verdict for plaintiff In tn. sum OF 400.
and that the value OF the manure which
tray had right to sell Was 70 90.
d. E. Hurley for plaintiff; e. e. Chase
for defendant.
Inc case OF Augustus M. Small VS.. Will
nam Warren, of which trial was begun,
was referred to e. E. Chase and j. B. Red
man Tor plaintiff, and c. S. Clark for de-
fendant.
harold F. Watson and Crissie Agnes
howard were arraigned Monday after
noon.
watson pleaded guilty to the larceny OF