Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1905-01-25
was not finished until night, occupying

Each suit was for e5 900 damages.
The jury after several hours elaboration
Friday evening brought In 4 verdict for
tue plaintiffs In the sum OF $3.50 each
The verdict was not reached In season to
| return 1t Friday evening, SO 1t was re-
ported to the court Saturday morning.
SATURDAY, JAN. 81.
After the report of the jury on
Eaton vs.. Gray and Wood vs.. Gray, the
c,urt's attention for the remainder OF the
morning was g ven to the case OF the Bur-
riil national bank vs.. Robert Gerry.
The action Yves brought to recover from
the defendant the value OF a note claimed
to have been given to or endorsed by DIR.
George A. Phillips, OF Bar Harbor, and
discounted at the BurriII national bank.
The defendant claimed to have paid the
| note by check, and produced the check In
evidence.
The plaintiff claimed that the note was
not paid, and that the check exhibited by
the defendant was In payment OF note
| held by Charles &. Burrill, president OF
the bank.
The evidence all through was rather
conf letting. At times there appeared to
be only one note, and at others there ap-
peared to he two. In fact, The testimony
was 80 conflicting that the jury failed to
| agree after three or four hours bailoting
The remainder OF Saturday was taken
| up will a hearing before Judge Emery
an action OF trover brought by seymour
| against Mrs. Oubutt. Seymour was try
ing to recover from his daughter, the oe
| claimed to have been Left on his placs OIL
Catheripe's hiil-the halfway house be-
tween franklin aud Cherry fisld-when he
| moved to Msssac husetts.
The story OF the case Is this: Seymour
| kept the half way house for several years
| In 1894 or thereabouts he sold his place to
| bis SOU In law, and moved to Msssach u-
sets, taking with him much of his house,
hold furniture; the remainder, 1t was
claimed by the defendant, was thrown
into the bargain with the sale OF the
house, for which s57 was paid.
Seymour came back, and brought action
| against his daughter to recover the value
OF these goods which the daug liter
claims bad been paid for.
In summing up the case Monday after
| noon Judge Emery said that he should
have to discharge the defendant because
| It had not been proven she was in posses
lion of any goods except q few articles
which she had bought and paid for; that
| her husband was the person tho action
| should have been brought against, and
then he did not know as 1t would stand.
The defendant was discharged.
MONDAY, JAN. "a.
Game vs.. Wiebsm was put on the fret
thing Monday morning and occupied
| about an hour of the morning session.
1t was an action in which Joseph Caine,
OF West Ellsworth, sort to recover horse
claimed to have been wrongly held by
Charles o. William, of West Ellsworth.
A verdict for the defendant WAS re-
| turned after short deliberatiop.
| Watson VS.. Gsult held the attention oil
the jury the rest OF the forenoon. 1t wat
an seton brought to recover the amount
OF bill Of goods sold to Prudence Stevens
as agent OF Mrs. Maria Gauit, OF Lamoine
From the evidence 1t would seem tina.
when Mrs. Stevens was keeping a mill
merry store Oh Main street, Ellsworth, sue
was doing SO as the agent Of her mother
Mrs. Gsuit. 1t was at this time that she
bought bill of goods Of the plaintiff
representing herself to be the agent oil
the defendant.
| The jury returned verdict for the
plaintiff in the sum Of $3.50 SO.
| AT 4 10 Judge Emery called the docke,
and disposed Of sill cases, and then, after
thanking the jury, discharged them.
Following is disposition OF the assigned
cases:
| SPECIAL ASSIGNED LIST.
1902. Wood VS.. Gray. sporord; LittleAeld
Deasy. Verdict for plaintiff for $50.
1905 Eaton VS.. Gray. spoGord; Liitleaeld,
| Dessy. Verdict for plaintiff for $50.
1855 Goes VS.. Eaton. sponord; Liuleaeld
| Dcasy. Continued.
1867. Goss VS.. Eaton. sponord; Little field
| Deasy. Continued.
| 1880. Dunbar Bros. va. Braman. Decay; Hale
& Hamlin. Continued.
lT3i. Hartman vs.. Snowman. Fellows; Chase
King. Jury disagreed.
\ 1887. Burril Bank vs.. Gerry. Burrill; Hale 4
Hamlin. Jury disagreed.
I'LL. Seymour VS.. Oubutt. whiting; Camp
| bell Il Haycock Verdict for defendant
1907. Caine VS.. witham. Hale 4 Hamlin; Eel
| lows. Verdict for defendant.
1918. Ober VS.. Bartlett. Benson; Deasy.
2a9. Watson VS.. Gault. Hale & IIamiin Peters
Verdict for plaintiff for 500 s6.
| 1885. Towle vs.. Whitney. Fellows.
I'LL. Michel-en VS.. liardman. Whiting; King
| Ref, rred TO court.
lee. Gordon vs.. Gorion. Deasy; King. Re
| ferred to court.
1872. Hinckley VS.. Cray. Chase; Hurley. De
| faulted-
atNERAL ASSIGNED LIST.
1914. Fisher & Co VS.. Standard Co. Crosby;
| King. Neither party.
1921. Gault VS.. Emo. Peters r. e. Mason. De
| faulied.
.4s4. Hardware Co VS.. Berry. Il. K. Mason
SpoGord.