Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-11-28
NOT GUILTY
Is Verdict in Finn vs.. n.
E. Tel. and Tel. Co.
Suit OF !. 7. Bradstreet Against
Elias MiIliken Estate
20 Recover on Account Of Late Rich.
nnor.i Lumber Co.

hone aj.d Telegraph Co. returned A
y,itict. tina, the Defendant comnanv
va lt"t guilty under the provisions Of
the WA rant. and was freed Of all blame
in The cas-, OF the plaintiffs injuries.
lf."r ore.. Ia &C hours elaboration. The
vere!ict was rendered prior to the ad-
i"urnmeiI Of the court. and while not
entirely unexpected. caused consider
able Srnnris. among the assembled
lawyers ard spectators.
The case is probably well remembered
as having occurred near the residence
Of the late Hon. James G. Blaine. on
the afternoon Of Aug. "a. 1903. and has
been reviewed in the recent evidence
in the supreme court. It has occasioned
much interest among the law fraterni-
~, owing the various points in Ia "
brought forth by tha contending coun-
sci. and the verdict has been awaited
with more than ordinary interest.
The hearing in Tho above case. was
resumed in the supreme judicial court,
before Justice Whitehouse. at $50
O'Clock, Saturday morning The session
opened with the charge to the jury
by Justice Whitellouse In concise
language. His Honor explained the
several intricate law points in the case.
and made his characteristic. nOn-par-
tisian charge to the jury. The charge
occupied nearly an hours time AMI
proved a smooth. polished address, be-
ing both interesting to the casual at
tendant, and instructive to the many
law students present. At the conclusion
of the charge To the jury, the court
enjoyed a short recess.
The case of Joseph S. and Frederick
T. Br3dStreet. against the estate of the
late Elias Milliken, formerly of Angus
ia, was then brought to the attention
of the court. At this point i'm the pro-
ceedings the other jurors present were
excused from duty until o'clock,
Monday afternoon. This case proved to
be somewhat complicat ted. inasmuch as
both Joseph s. Brndstreet, and Elias
Millken. contendiny parties in the suit.
are deceased. The action is brought by
known under the head of ]. S. & F. T.
Bradstreet. against the estate of the
late Elias Miliiken. and the defunct
Richmond LumberICo.
Hon. Orville Baker is counsel for the
plaintiff. and Heath and Andrews are
acting for the defendants In opening
the argument for the plaintiff. Mr..
Baker. after reading the writ under
which the suit IS brought gave short
history of the case dS he hoped to
bring forth in the evidence. According
to his version. the suit is brought by
the BradStreet LAUNDERING Co. of which
one of the members, Joseph S., is de-
ceased. and in fact was deceased, at
the time of the action for which the
suit is brought. Mr.. Milliken is also
deceased. and to Mr. Bakers view
would make the case complicated, as
the suit is brought against the admin
istratOrs of the estate. Mr.. Milliken was
the financial hacker of the firm, known
as the Richmond Lumber Co., of which
his nephew. M. P. Nillillen. was man.
ager. The firm was backed by the for
lner, inaSmuch as he guaranteed pay
ments for all logs. purchased for use
of the company. at their mills in Rich
mond. These were bought on 4-month
notes. in quantities designated by NJ.
P. Milliken, the notes being signed by
the latter, in the name of the Richmond
Co. but payment was guaran-
teed by Elias Milliken.
Logs We're purchased as follows: In
1894 3sOO,ONO feet: in 1895, 100000 feet
and in 1895 1.S0O000 feet, all at the
current contract prices. In 1896. 100000
feet additional wert purchased and at
The contract price We're worth $6.4S1. SO.
In payment. two notes at four months
were offered. one for 81 1859 and the
other for S5,225 10. The first note was
paid at date. but the latter was ex-
tended from time to time. until on Dec.
10, 1900. payment was absolutely re-
used.
At this time some trouble was ap-
"a rent at the mill. and Elias Milliken
assumed control in person. and there |
lfter ran the business personally The
plaintiff could not effect settlement
m the not and Immediately began suit.
During the intervening time. Elias
Milliken died, and the Plaintiff took a |
lew course of action and instituted the |
present proceedings.
This was the story of Attorney Baker, |
md in concluding he said he hoped to |
,rOve conciusively. that the money was |
lue and further, had never been paid |
Frederick T. Bradstreet. the plaintiff |
n the case. was called upon to testify. |
Nr. BraGstreet identified several pap
RS. that were drawn up relative to
proceedings in the case but when the
objections Of Attorney Baker We're rul-
d upon by the court. there was little
n the witness testimony that was adj
nisable. Testimony in regard to con-
ersatiOn with the deceased were ruled
8 unadmisable according to statute.
Leslie c. Cornish. practicins attor-
icy before the bar, was called upon to
tate what he knew in regard to the
ase. Mr.. Cornish has been engaged as
administrator Of the estate Of the late
Oseph Bradstreet, who was aethe time
f his death associated with his brother.
n the numbering business.
Attorney Heath objected to the wit
ess, on the ground that he was not
competent witness on the usual
tatue grounds, etc. As a result. law
'as quoted galore. and at the ruling
+ the court. witness was allowed. to
estify. His testimony consisted in tell
lg of the relations of the estate, in
he present holdings of lumber lands in