Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1906-04-18

Coart viii last out the present week, and
,r.sent indications are that 1t will extend
: few DAYS into next week, though final
Adjournment may be reached Saturday.
The case OF Nicholson ~. Maine Central
,sn,nad which went on trial at noon yes
tsrlsr. will run well into tomorrow.
Their IS possibility OF one or two more
civil trials tofofa the criminal docket is
reached.
The grand jury rose FRIDAY afternoon,
re,oftlng six indictments, as given below
in tbs criminal docket. No indictment
was foand in the Penobscot intantieide
case.
Thursday was q qaiet day in court, the
case On the assigned list for trial being
settled.
DREW VS. h. II. 8 q. r. POWER co.
Friday morning the case OF the Drew
Machinery Co., Manchester, y, H.,
against the Bar Harbor & Union River
Power Co, referred to the Court on agreed
statement, was argued By Thomas l.. Tai
bot, Of Antoine & Talbot, Portland, for
plaintiffs, and Henry NJ. Hall, Of Hale &
Harulin, for defendants.
This vas an action of trover In which
the doctrine Of estoppel was put forward.
some three years ago the defendant com
pany had at its Bar Harbor plant three
second hand boilers which il offered for
sale. Among other inquiries was one from
the plaintiff company. The defendants,
in reply to the inquiry, informed the
plaintiffs that the boilers had been ..Soid"
to a jew iunkman in Biddetord and by
him sold 10 Mr. Albert, Of Portland
The plaintiffs then took up negotiations
with Albert, and eventually purchased
the three boilers, giving 500 in cash and
a tour-months note for $500. which was
paid when due. The Biddeford jew and
Albert have both since left the State.
Almost a year later tho plaintiffs again
wrote the Bar Harbor a Union River Pow
boilers, and then the defendant company
advised them that one of the boilers had
been sold to Frank Spratt, OF Bar Harbor,
and the other two were still ON their
hands.
This letter brought a statement from
the plaintiffs of their trade with Albert,
and the claim that the boiler sold was
their property, which is the boiler in ques-
lion In this suit. In reply the power COM
fany informed them that they had only
given an option on the boilers to the jew
Jankman for $50, the boilers not to be de-
hvered until paid for. That one had been
paid for, and in consideration OF the
option forfeited, they would deliver the
TWO remaining boilers TO the plaintiffs,
and this was done.
The plaintiffs base their case on the first
letter from the defendants advising them
that the boilers had been s'soid", when as
matter OF fact they had only been OPP
TONED, and because OF this statement,
GAINED the defendants were estopped
From defense to the suit.
The plaintiffs claimed that the word
sold" in their first letter was used merely
@a layman would use 1t, and with no in
tent to mislead, that they had no knowl-
eage OF plaintiffs negotiations with Albert
until year later, and that when they de-
hVered the remaining boilers to the plain
uns, they did what they could to make
good plaintiffs loss, and the acceptance
oy plaintiff OF these two boilers they con-
siaered virtual acceptance of them in
settlement, and plaintiffs were therefore