Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1908-04-22

| Clerk-JoHN F. KSowLroS. Ellsworth.
County Attorney-CaARLEs H. woop, Bar
Harbor.
| Sheriff-ByRoN H. MAYO, Ellsworth.
| Crier-BuRKE LEACH, Bucksport.
Deputies-BUBKE LEACH, Bucksport; DAVID
| W. CARNEY. Ellsworth JAMES s. FsRsALD,
fremont: JOHN E. WEBSTER, Bluehill; Ro-
| LAND A. FIVE, Brooklin.
Stenographer- FRED L. HAYDEN, Portland
Messenger HANLIN MADpocks, Ellsworth
The past week has been busy one in
court. Several important civil cases have
been tried, and there are two other i'm
criminal docket is reached. Court will
probably extend over into next week.
TRUNDY VS.. CUNNINGHAM.
The case OF Frank N. Trundy VS.. Syl-
vanus G. Cunningham, both of West Sur
ry, an action for $1,000 damages for SLAM
der. went on trial Thursday morning.
Plaintiff alleged that defendant had ma
,liciously slandered him by reporting that
/ he had sold diseased meat. L. f. Giles
for plaintiff; f. l.. Mason for defendant.
After evidence for plaintiff had been taken
out, the case was settled between the
parties.
TAYLOR VS.. MlLLIkEN.
The case Of Georgia Taylor vs.. Betsy
Miliiken was tried Thursday afternoon.
+. L. Burrill for plaintiff; F. l.. Mason for
defendant. This was an action on re-
plevin, to decide title to an old mahogany
bureau which had been in the family for
years. The parties to the suit were sis
tars, both formerly living at Bayside,
Ellsworth, where defendant still resides.
Plaintiff claimed ownership OF the bu-
H.
to whom she claimed it had been given BY
her mother. Defendant claimed owner
ship through direct gift from her mother.
The bureau had been in possession Of de-
PENDANT for thirty years, and not until last
January, she says, was her ownership Ques-
toned.
The jury returned verdict for the de-
PENDANT.
Ali the cases on the trial list for Friday
were disposed Of without trial. Several
divorce cases were heard Friday. Capt.
II. J. Joy and Charles E. Monaghan, of
Ellsworth. were sworn in as traverse
jurors.
DAVIS VS.. FROST.
Two cases were tried Saturday. The
first was an action of trover brought by
Hollis c. Davis against Jacob Frost, TO re-
cover jigger wagon valued at $35. D. E..
Hurley appeared for plaintiff and F. l..
Mason for defendant.
1t was admitted that in the summer of
1907 the defendant owned the wagon in
question, which Mr.. Davis borrowed and
used for some time. There was some talk
OF sale, but it was not made. Later
plaintiff met John Maloney, who said he
had bought the wagon OF Mr.. Frost, and
would sell it to him. Mr.. DAvis bought
the wagon Of Mr.. Maloney.
Some time later Mr.. Davis met Mr.. Frost
on the street, and the latter asked him
what he was going to do about the wagon.
Mr.. Davis said he had bought the wagon
OF Mr.. Maloney. MIR. FROST said that he
had not sold the wagon to Mr.. Maioney,
and soon afterward seized the wagon and
took it home.
The case hinged on the question whether
there was Q sale of the wagon between
Mr.. Frost and Mr.. Maioney, and on1his
point witnesses for both sides differed as
10 the time Of the alleged sale, the
Mr.. Maioney testified that he had given
Mr.. Frost credit for the wagon on his
books, but had never paid him in cash.
The jury returned q verdict for the de-
PENDANT.
HURLEY VS.. ARCHER.
The second case tried Saturday was that
OF Fred Moore and jeremiah Hurley vs..
Alvin Archer, for trespass. The case in
volved title to wild land in No. s planta-
lion, Clallueu Dy Tue ana DIV l..
f. Giles. The defendant in the case,
acting under instructions from Mr.. Giles,
cut wood on the property in question, and
action for trespass was brought against
him. D. E. Hurley appeared for plaintiffs
and L. F. Giles for defendant. Plaintiff
was non-suited.
BURNHAM VS.. AUSTIN.
The case of E. G. Burnham VS.. Mary C.
Fretz Austin, OF Hancock, went on trial
Monday noon. This was an action for
damages growing out of a numbering
ter of 1867. John A. Peters appeared for
,iaintiff, Deasy a. Lyman for defendant.
In December, 1906, plaintiff was licensed
by the defendant to cut stavewood on her
land in the town of Hancock. under GER
tain conditions. 1t was his intention to
cut about 5000 cords of wood, and he put
several crews in the woods, built camps,
and made preparations tor extensive oper-
atoms.
Operations had been under way but a
few days, when, plaintiff claims, the de-
PENDANT interrupted his operations, forbid
ing him to cut spruce, or any wood except
as designated by her agent. The defend
ant further took spruce that had al
ready been cut and landed at plain
tiff's mill. Plaintiff claimed that he had
faithfully fulfilled all the conditions of
the contract, and that because of defend
ants action the operation had been los-
ing one, and he claimed damages in the
sum of $4,000.
Defendant claimed that the written Ii
cense was subsequent to a verbal under
standing, one OF the conditions being that
no spruce suite BILE for saw logs should be
cut, but that this condition was mad ert-
entity omitted from the written license.
Defendant claimed further that the Ii
cense was revocabie. and was revoked by
her on Dec. 81, 1906.
The taking of evidence in the case was
finished at adjournment of court Tuesday
afternoon. This morning. Mr.. Deasy for
defendant made an extended argument on
motion for verdict to be ordered by the
court.
Upon the motion OF defendants coun-
sci, verdict for the defendant was ordered.
with the stipulation on his part that, il
the law court oyerrules this order, then
the defendant agrees that judgment may
be entered for the plaintiff in the sum Of
s403.
LUNT VS.. BURRILL.
The case of z. P. Lunt, of Long Island
plant. Va, Charles c. Burrill, of Ellsworth,