Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1905-04-19

o'clock and 1t returned for the plaintir in
the sum of s212.e0.
In the next two cases on the special
assigned list the defendant was deiaulted.
SATURDAY, APRIL Is.
Saturday morning the case of the Burrill
national bank VS.. Robert Gerry was called
This case was tried at the January term,
but the jury could not agree on a verdict.
The plaintiff seeks to recover s21s.40
from the defendant--the amount OF note
give to DIR. George A. Phillips, OF Bar
Harbor, but formerly OF Ellsworth, and
by whom the note was discounted at the
Burrill national bank.
The note was given in 1898 and accord
ing to the books OF the bank had been
paid by renewal until the protest of the
note in suit
The note in suit was presented by the
plaintiff as primu facie evidence.
The defense was the general issue. It
claimed that it had been paid to the
president of the bank, Charles c. Bur
rill. In the REORGANIZATION the
plaintiffs tried to bring out that there
were two notes in question.
The case occupied all day Saturday,
and the jury returned verdict for the
defendant. Exceptions win be fled and
the case taken to the law court. f. C.
Burrill and o. F. Fellows for the plaintiff:
Hale & Hamlin for the defendant.
MONDAY, APRIL II.
The case of the Burrill national bank
VS.. the inhabitants of Otis was reassigned
for this morning on account of the plain
tin not being able to get its principal
witnesses.
In Small vs.. Warren the defendant was
defaulted.
Monday afternoon Martin VS.. Pettee
took the attention of the jury, also Tues
day forenoon. 1t was an action of waste
and also one where the plaintiff seeks to
recover the amount of taxes paid out by
him for the defendant.
The dispute arises over the question of
repairs to be made by the widow OF
Andrew Pettee, who is a one-half owner
OF the estate.
The plaintiff has acquired eleven
t"tsAthS VI tht ttiuAiusUB vi Tine
property o: the other heirs, and he claims
that the defendant is not keeping her
half OF the homestead in proper repair,
and also that she has not paid the taxes
on her share.
The defense was a general denial and
showed by testimony that the house was
in as good repair as half the houses in
Sullivan.
In cross-examinstion it was also shown
that the plaintiff had not made any re-
pairs ON his portion of the property as he
claimed that the defendant should have
done.
After the testimony was in the counsels
got their heads together and took the case
from the jury and will take ii to the law
court to decide whether or not Mrs. Pettee
will have to pay her share OF the taxes.
Mrs. Pettee testified she had never re-
ceived tax bill and also that she had
seen the assessors and they informed her
there were no taxes assessed against her,
The tax for the whole property was for
the heirs OF the late Andrew Pettee.
Tuesday afternoon nothing was done
In open court, and the same was the case
Wednesday morning.
The case OF the Hancock county savings
bank against the town OF Otis was con-
tinued until the October term because
the plaintiff could not get a material
witness.
At 10 o'clock the jurors were excused
until tomorrow at O'Clock.
Some men, like mules, do little head
work and are always kicking.