Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1903-04-22

SHcriu-t. r. WHITC'MB
Crier-i, T sfLsBY >ororal
Stehographer-I ) ESTES. Portland.
imputie--D u FIELDS Ellsworth; JAMES
, Hill, tioai,shnrn; J >UMIssBy, Bar Har-
| boz; wALTEs SNOWMAN BucAr bort
Messehger-F, Il rILnEs.
The past week has been a busy one in
| the supreme court; brpe civil cases have
been tried aud verdicts returned In two,
aud the jury was out at noon to-day de-
iineratirg on the third.
Two other civil cases are expected for
triai; une is being heard this afternoon,
| that OF Tinker vs.. Moore.
ALBEE VS. BENSON EFT AL. "
The first case to he gwen trial was that
OF Albee VS.. Benson aud Parker. This
was an action brought ny Charles Aibee,
| OF Boston, against E. N. Benson, OF Bar
Hsrbor, aud William H Parker, of Win.
ter Harbor, to recover payment for 1855
shares OF stock in the Winter Harbor a"d
Bar Harbor Steamboat Co , at IS per share,
which the plaint Fl alleged that the defen-
dant-, who we're officials of that company,
had agreed to purchase at par in October,
1891, under certain conditions relative to
t,e financial conditions OF the steamboat
CO npauy at that time, aud the sale 1T
the steamer "Psuline', owned by the
company
| TIE piaintiff alleged that the defendants
were bound by this contract to purchase
his stock, and that they did not do 80. and
further that their alleged acts OF selling
tue steamer witnout plaintiffs consent,
aud in other ways, had rendered bis
stock wort bless.
| Defendants alleged that they had com
piled vita certain conditions of the con-
tract which rendered 1t null and void at
the date mentioned, aud that the "Pau-
H. e' had been sold by vote of the com
psny, and that the plaintiff had been kept
informed OF the acts OF the company, Of
the vote, and OF the sale.
Also That Ia October, 1901, the stock was
not wort hiess.
Verdict WAS found for the plaintiff n
the sum of ESQ P. II. Giilin and o. F
Fellows for pIsiotiff l. B Deasy for The
defense.
LEACH vs. GERRY.
The case OF Leach vs.. Gerry was tried
Friday. This was an action brought by
Ruei J. Leach to hold title to a certain
horse aud horse sIeds taken by hun by a
writ OF rep eyin, from Robert Gerry, Of
Ellsworth Falls, administrator Of the
estate OF George l. Gerry, by virtue of a
mortgage bill of sale conveyed by tue late
George L Gerry to the plaintiff
The defendant, Robert Gerry, claimed
title to the horse and sleds, by reason of
having paid certain claims and notes Ill
which the property in question fig
| ufei.
Verdict was found for the paintiff
j. A. Peters, ir, for PLAINTIFF; Hale &
Hamlin for defendant
CowAN VS. BUcKsPoRT. V
The case OF Cowsn vs.. lima bitants OF
Bucksport was pegun Tuesday morning.
rhis was an action in which Margaret e.
CoSan, OF Bucksport, seeks to recover
damages for Injuries received by her by
re ,soG of defect In the highway in
Bucksport, and sues for ~ 900
Tue plaintiff alleges that on Nov. IS,
1901, while driving from her home early
i'll the morning, the pung in which she
rode was overturned by reason OF a large
stone In the road at tue corner of Main
aud Hinch streets III BuckspOrt, and that
she was thrown out and seriously and
permanently Injured.
| The plaintiff also alleges that the stone
which caused the accident was in the
travelled way, and that the officials OF the
town had received the twenty four hour
notice Of the defect, prior to the acct
deut, as required by law.
The defense claims that the pung in
which the plaintiff rode was unsafe, that
she was not exercising due care in driv-
ing, that the town officials were not given
notice of the defect, aud that the stone
which caused he accident was the header
t, a certain cuivert which the plaintiff
struck in attempting to keep the puDg
on the snow, aud not a stone in the
travelled part OF the highway.
| A long array OF witnesses was called
from Bucksport on bo sides.
! The case went to the jury this noon.
w. R. Pattengsll, T, B. Towle, I. IL.
Smith for the plaintiff; o F. Fellows for
| the defense.
The Jury reported when court as
sem bled al +. M, and returned YER
dict OF 5000 for the plaintiff
TINKER VS. MOORE.
The case on trial this afternoon is that
OF Tinker VS. Moore. This is an action
brought by Frances A. Tinker, Of this
city, Ia which she seeks to recover from
Augustus e, Moore, Main street dry
goods dealer, damages for alleged SANDER.
The plaintiff, Mrs. Tinker, alleges that
in nuary, 1902, MIR. Moore, the defend
ant, accused her Of taking or stealing GER
tain goods from his store, and made
statements that he had heard before that
she was dishonest.
She denounces the charges as false, and
claims that by these false accusations she
Is entitled to damages.
The case had only reached this point