Daily Kennebec journal., 1908-12-21

is therefore charged with the duty Of
instituting proceedings to locate lots
reserved in grants of land embracing
the plantation of Elliottsville and not
lawfully located in severaity by the !
grantees or by proceedings invoked by
the assessors of the plantation, or of
the town during it's corporate exist |
ence from February, 1885, to May rs,
1858. In his petition he alleges that the
reserved lots in the land therein de-
scribed have not been located in sever
atty for the purposes expressed in the
grants. This allegation is denied by the
defendants in their answer. The peti-
ton can be granted only in case a le-
gal location has not been made and
he burden rests upon the petitioner to
prove this fact. Although negative In
form it is in substance the affirmation
Of the petitioners statutory authority
O apply for the appointment of a COM
nittee for the location of the lots in
question.
The reservations and conditions sub
euuent in the grants Of land compris-
'ng the plantation introduced on evil
lence by the land agent show prima
eedings, and thereupon the duty OF
reducing competent evidence to re-
,ut it devolves upon the defendant.
Primary evidence would be sought in
he records of the registry Of deeds in
he county in which the land lies, in
he records of the plantation and town
Elliottsville and Of the courts haV-
ne jurisdiction. If the allotment has
ept of lots reserved in the tract
,ranted to the Saco Free Bridge Fund,
70 such record of evidence has been
discovered
Secondary evidence is offered by the
espondents of certain words and re-
itals in deeds of land within the ter
itorial limits of the Vaughn tract
hich imply an allotment, also marks
n an old plan of Elliott&ville known
IS the Bodfish Plan, the statements III
.oring's History of Piscataquis CcuG-
y, and school reports are introduced
which are consistent with the claim
t the defendants that the conditions
this grant have been performed IN
cference to that part of the planta-
ion Objection to the admission Of the
;odfish plan as evidence is made by
he petitioner because not clearly
-hown to have been in existence 80
years and because it has upon it marks
not originally a part of the plan, but
We think it is within the rule admitting
tncient documents as evidence. OBJ
ction is also made to the admission
of Loring's History, but there IS no
Indication that the writer had any in
crest to incorporate in his history any
tatements inconsistent with the orig
inal sources of the information upon
which they are founded, and under the
circumstances we think it competent
vidence upon a question of t;lis M
ure.
But there appears to be no eviGgnce
# an allotment of reserved land within
he limits of the one-mile strip Of 5000
acrs, or of the State tract of 1926 acres.
he only clearly proven action in locat-
ng any of the land reserved is that of
ne trustees of the SacO Free Bridge
und but this has the appearance of
cling a psuedo allotment and should
treated as void. Even if the action
f the propretors was bona fde the
onditons of the grant We're not per-
ormed by laying out and alloting wa
ublic waters could not pass by the
rant to them, instead of land of aver
ge quality with the residue of lands
herein.
1t is conceded by the petitioner that
ne deeds offered in evidence by him
low the conveyance of the entire
tate tract without the reservation of
OTIS which the Statute of 1924 required;
hu he contends that the grantees took
ne deeds subject to public rights and
ne existing laws which they were pre-
lmed to know. The decision in Blake
S. Bangor Savings Bank. 76 Me. 31T7,
'pon which the land owners rely, holds
that the burden of the reservation of
a.. lie lots passed to the portion last
onveyed by the State. The last con-
rance by the State of land in this
tract was 1850 acres to Dudley F. Leav-
lit, Sept. l. 1866, and out of this portion
ne location Of the public lots must be
made.
a committee should therefore be ap-
ointed to locate public lots as fol-
ows. viz: In the one-mile strip of the
Massachusetts Medical Society, 5000
res, one lot of 125 acres, in the Saco
iee biiuSe Uiiu SIdIll, 4Vff acres,
hree lots of 56 acres each, and in the
dudley f. Leavitt grant 1850 acres. be-
ng part of the State tract, 1926 acres,
asst conveyed, a lot or lots containing
the aggregate 1889 acres, of average
luality with the residue Of lands III
Aach tract, and to designate the use for
which each lot is so reserved and 10
'ated.
Petition granted Proceedings nisi
prius according to this opinion.
Cumberland County-Julius Huskin VS..
Lewis w. Moulton. Isescript
Spear, j.
This is an action of trespass. After