Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-02-02
ANOTHER SUIT.
Charles D. morrill, Of
Gardiner In New Move
$4,000 For Suffering Arrest and
Imprisonment.
Sherburne, Boucher and Westwood of
Sanford As Defendants.

Saco. Me-, Feb. Fired S. Sherburne.
The wealthy millman and owner of Il
humble: OF tenement houses in Sanford
who was the defendant in the 81 oOD
alteration of affection suit just ended
III the York supreme court. is to figure
il the courts Of York county at the
Nay or September term in another
case, where the testimony will proba-
bly, be fully as interesting as in tie ease
just brought to il close
In the alienation OF atfc, ton suit The
jury returned Il verdict for the pl:,in-
tiff, Charles ID. Morrill, of Gardiner, i'm
the sum of 81. This does not carry The
costs Of court AS many supposed. ANY
verdict of $50 or over carries the costs
of the court. which in this c:ise would
lave been quite heavy. as the trial has
been long. Ii carries instead a quarter
% the verdict toward the cost Of cnur;
which in this particular suit viii
amount to - cents. Thus the amount
of money that the defendant. Fred :;
Sh"rburna ill have 10 pay the plaintiff
is Sl25. There We're two counts in the
action, one alleging criminal con "crsa :
ton or adultery, and the other aleua-
ton of affections. Cpon the first charg
the respondent was not found guilty.
THIS clears Mrs. morrill, ANA Slrr-
hu'ne of III" graver charge.
I'll" plaintiff in this HOW $500 suit ~
t"ro'l at this term Of the supreme court
is Charles ID. Morrill, of Gardiner. Me.
tie ii!"iEtif in the suit in which the
jury awarded him 81 damages fer the
diverted affections of his wife. The de
PENDANTS are Fred :. Sherburne. c. T..
l'oucher, 4 principal witness in the
sdiciGtiuti OF affection suit and Will
liam WestWood, Ill Of the town Of san
ford.
The plaintiff brings suit to re- over
5000 for suffering caused by arrest ana
Imprisonment ANA All attempt to ruin
him. He alleges that the conspiracy
vas a bold one, but proved unsuccess-
lul.
During the $4,000 suit reference was
made several times during the trial to
= knrhcstcr incident. hut the iu !ge de
ci1cG that the evidence in regard 20 this
episode should not be introduced in the
alienation Of election suit.
The 5000 suit grew cut Of an 1T
tempt made. it is alleged. to secure a
conviction of adultery against Charles
i. morrill,. the supposed purpose OF
y hich was 10 enable Mrs. morrill, 10 Sc
cure the divorce she had been unable
10 pet on the grounds of gross ana con-
fir,ned habits of INVESTIGATION.
1t is alleged that last October. tn" de-
~, NIAp-il1 a
30 10 ';orhester. ~ H.. "a confer With
parties who contemplated starting Il
pew industry i'll that town ana l5si ell
him. Mr. Morrill,, To act as foreman of
tie plant.
Accompanied by the defendants he
went there. He alleges that they en-
tcrd the room of a house and talked tho
matter over. While they we're discuss
ing the alleged business transaction, q
pretty young woman entered the room
and made inquiry about her father. who
WAS supposed to he one of tn" parties
interested in the now enternrise She
Mas TOLD that her father would be there
shortly and asked if she would not he
seated she did so. one br one lii"
Other members of the ,,rty lett the
room and soon Mr.. Morrill, was alone
with the comedy young woman.
shortly after i policeman entered the
apartment and placed them under ar
rest. The following day the man and
woman were brought before the Roch-
ester court on j warrant alleging adul-
terry. When the county solicitor learned
tho facts. the respondent was dis
charged.