Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1906-10-17


Mayheli. James. ..s.....-...-...-..-s..s Sullivan
Pefry, Herbert C...s...s..+s.....-...Pc nobscot
surEaxr mgaARiRs.
Saunders, Granville H.. .surry
seammon. ). s.........-.-+............ Franklin
HuTcHrsos vs.. HARTMAN.
The case OF Josephine A. Hutehings vs..
NJ II. Hartman, OF oriand. went on trial
Thursday morning. Plaintiff sued to re-
cover money received for sale OF n small
place in orland, title Of which was in de-
PENDANTS name, but the property being
owned by plaintiff, sister of the defend
ant. After plaintiffs case was in, it de-
yeloped that the property had not been
transferred by the defendant to a third
party, and plaintiffs non suit was ordered.
SPRINGER VI. JACKSON.
The case OF Cornelius Springer, OF Tren-
ton, vs.. T. W. Jackson, of Bass Hsr-
Dor, went on trial Thursday afternoon.
This was an action brought to recover 200
damages for injury to horse because OF
alleged negligence on the part of defend
ant.
In August, 1905, plaintiff drove to Bass
Harbor and put mp at defendants stable.
The horse was tied to loop in partition
on the floor OF the barn, but broke the
loop out during the night and, wandering
about the barn, fell partly through feed
trap In the floor.
Plaintiff claimed the horse received
permanent injuries which deprecated its
value goo; defendant said every reason
able precaution was used, and he was not
responsible for the accident.
The case went to the jury Friday fore
noon A verdict for defendant was re-
turned.
RANKIN vs.. STEVENS.
The case OF Nellie +. Rankin, of orland,
gs- ssbrins Stevens, OF surry, went on
trial Friday forenoon. The plaintiff sued
TO recover 52-50 for services for 23o weeks
at s1.50 a week.
In December, 1901, plaintiff went to live
with defendant, and remained with her
until July of the present year, doing,
she claims, not only homework, but a
mans work about the farm and barn.
Plaintiff alleges an agreement between
the defendant, her parents and herself,
that she was to receive $50 a week She
received no money while with defendant,
and sues TO recover for entire time OF her
services.
Defendant says she took the girl by ar
rahgement with the selectmen OF Surry.
That the Rankin family was being as
sisted by the town, and she took the girl
to keep her from going on the town. That
IN fact the town of Surry paid her, while
the girl was ill, $50 week for her board,
but when the girl was well and could
work, she furnished her board and cloth
ing. Defendant said there was no con-
tract to pay the girl, and she knew OF no
claim for services until the summons in
the present suit was served on her less
a month ago.
The case went to the jury Saturday
noon. The jury remained out until p.
M, returning a sealed verdict Monday
afternoon. The verdict was for plsintin,
for s24s.42.
CUNNINGHAM VS.. TRUNDY.
The case OF Mrs. Cora Cunningham vs..
frank rrundy, went on trial Saturday and
continued through Monday, going to the
Jury Tuesday forenoon.
This is land case in which boundary
line between farms OF the defendants Is
IN dispute. The value of property in
volved is not large.
The jury returned verdict for defend
ant.
ASSIGNED LIST.
Following is the special assigned list,
with record of disposal OF cases:
1888 Hutchins VS.. Hartman Fellowsi King
Plaintiff non suited.
1892 Springer vs.. Jackson. Deasy ~ Lyman;
King. Verdict for defendant.
2l5 Patten vs. Pntten. King; Mason peasy
& Lyman. Judgment for plaintin by
consent.
22s4 Marshall w. Casper. Fellows King
Continued.
22f6 Buck vs. Buck. Fcllowsi Cunningham
continued.
2255 Rankin VS.. Stevens. FelloWsi Tiles
Verdict for plaintiff, s2is'H'
2250 Cunningham VS.. Trundy. Fellows;
GILES. Verdict for defendant; motion
for new trial filed.
s25 Pineo, in equity VS.. Richards. Graham;
Deasy & Lyman. Final decree nieo'
DIVORCES DEcREED.
Divorces have been decreed as follows:
Hiatt xs-..ta~ 81 RlIaxnrfh lihpi-