Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1904-01-27
THURSDAY JAN. 81.

Thursday morning the case OF Myra 8.
Holmes vs.. N. G. Morrison & Co., Bar
Hafbor, was put on. TDis was an action
to recover on seven notes issued to either
Mrs. Holmes or her daughter, Mrs. Mark
G. Morrison, and amounting to 1887.
Mrs.. Holmes testified that three OF the
notes were issued for money loaned to the
firm OF M. G. Morrison d Co., then
doing busibe ss In Bar Harbor. The
other four we're made out to her daugh-
ter and were issued in payment OF wages
hich were due her for services rendered
as book keeper In the drug store. The
notes were produced as evidence, and all
were either demand or q few days after
sight. All notes were signed with he
firm name by Mark @. Morrison, the
junior member OF the firm.
Several witnesses were called by the
plaintiffs attorney and the testimony was
su bstantislly the Same in ali.
The defence was general denial. Four
OF the notes DIR. c. q. Morrison, the senior
member of the firm, denied ever having
seen before. At one time the plaintiff
hal presented him some notes for pay
ment, but they were demand notes and
the ones produced by the plaintiff In
court were sight notes.
Verdict was rendered for the plaintiff
for s722 81. Peters for plaintiff; Wood
and Dessy for defendant.
FRIDAY, JAN. %
The case OF Thomas M. Nicholson We.
Maine Central Railroad Co. occupied the
whole day Friday and Saturday fore
noon. This was an action in which Capt.
T. M. Nicholson, OF Bucksport, seeks to
recover certain land In the town OF
Bucksport, from the Maine Central rail-
road.
The case has been tried In the supreme
court before and judgment found for
the defendant. Ii was sent to the law
court and returned to the lower court for
a new trial on certain points that were
not brought out in the first trial.
The Maine Central railroad had the
right of way over q piece OF property
| adjoining Mr.. Nicbolsou's shipyard. 1t
came into their possession when the mar
| row gauge road that ran from Bucksport
to Bangor was absorbed by the Maine
Central. Capt. Nicholson seeks to re-
cover the property, claiming that the de-
PENDANT company has for feitedtheir privi'
ege by not using The property.
Many witnesses were called by both
plaintiff and defendant. Much time was
taken by the attorneys in making their
pleas; also by the judge n charging
the jury. The jury retired at IL O'Clock,
and were out four hours. They brought
in sealed verdict Monday afternoon for
the plaintiff, with special verdict for
the defendant.
The verdict for the plaintiff was: 1.-The
jury finds that the defendant did disseze
In manner and form as the plaintiff has
declared" The question which the jury
was to answer was as follows:
Is the plaintiffs title to and right to the
possession of the demanded premises,
subject to an easement belonging to the
defendant to use any portion of the
demanded premises for its railroad pur-
poses?
Answer. Yes.
Cunningham and Fellows for plaintiff,
Woodward for defendant.
MONDAY, JAN. 25.
Monday court did not resume business
till O'Clock In the afternoon. After
reading the verdict in the Nicholson VS..
NJ. c. K. r. case, the court proceeded to
get down to business end listen to one OF
the most long drawn out cases OF this
session.
1t was case OF trespass. in which Frank
M. Gaynor, of Ellsworth, was the defend
ant, and Alfred s. Reynolds, of Northeast
Hsrbor, the plaintiff
The point In discussion involved piece
OF land In Northeast Harbor directly
behind the hotel Gaynor. The plaintiff
claimed the line was In one place and the
defendant claimed 1t was in another.
The difference between the two points was
| about eight inches.
According to the testimony Mr.. Rey-
nolds employed two surveyors, one to run
off his lot and the other to verify the
figures of the first. Assuming that the
line run by the engineers was correct,
the plaintiff started to build a fence,
digging post holes and setting the POSTS
The defendant pulled these posts up and
threw them over onto the plaintiffs land
II the posts were on the defendants
land he had perfect right to do this,
but If they were on the plaintiffs prop
erty the defendant was guilty of trespass.
The hard point to decide was where was
the starting point from which the lines
were run. There were two stakes driven
into the ground at the southwest corner
OF tie Gsynor lot. By taking one OF
these stakes as starting point it would
bring the line W here the plaintiff claimed;
by taking the other stake as the starting
point 1t would bring the line where the
defendant claimed.
Several charts and deeds were intro
daaaH hy both afnas RI annnnrt THAR