The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1908-05-07
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT,
Judge Albert R. Savage of Auburn, Pre-
siding.

Judge Albert R. Savage of Auburn, Pre-
siding.
The S. j. Court for Waldo county adjourn
ed at noon Friday, May 1st. The following
Knowlton for plaintiff, Mason & Coolidge
of Pittsfeld, for defendant, was non suited.
A hearing in equity, Charles II. Elwell
versus c. F. Mitchell, upon demurrer filed
by the defendant to plaintiffs bill in equity,
was also heard. The court sustained the
Thomas E. Nickerson VS.. Elnatha w.
Robbins; mol pressed. Dunton & Morse
| Thompson.
Charles C. Park, collector, VS.. John n
| Hartman; personal notice ordered on Lorla
K. Hartman Beaton.
In the case of Elijah Ritchie, appellant,
versus Granville Morrill,, a sealed verdict
was returned. This case was on difference
| in measurement of a pile of wood. Plain
| tiff sold defendant three cords OF wood, at
| So per cord, but defendant claimed that he
| only received two cords and three feet. Yer
| dict for plaintiff, damages assessed at $40. 80
| Rtchie for plaintiff, Dunton d Morse Tor
| defendant.
Arthur Ritche versus Seth NJ. Knowlton
Richie sued the defendant for legal ser
vices in former case. Verdict Tor the
| plaintiff in the sum of $40 70.
Inhabitants of Brooks versus Charles
| Austin. This was an action by the town
| of Brooks against the defendant for taxes
| for 1896 The defendant claimed that he
| had paid the taxes and had receipt in full.
| The hearing was before the judge without
the iury by agreement. MIR. Austin appear
ed in his own behalf. Austin submitted his
own evidence, to wit, his own testimony,
that he had paid the collector all the money
| he had and given him note for the balance,
and had the collectors receipt in full. Ihls
| II
The plaintiff admitted the facts stated by
the defendant, but claimed that the note
had been returned TO Austin, as there was
want of consideration. The plaintiff cited
the law to the effect that the collector was
not authorized to receive note in payment
of taxes. The court called upon Austin to
present his law in rebuttal, and he cited as
authority his own experience to the effect
that he had taken calves, pigs. old sheep
and hoop poles in payment OF taxes many
times when he was collector. Some he had
made profit on while on others he had
lost The court took the matter under ad-
viSement, and gave Austin few days TO
look up the law in rebuttal Judgment for
plaintiff in the sum of $4S "a. F. W. Brown,
Jr. Austin.
The action brought by Augusta c. Mather
and Helen f. Berry against Albert w. Gun
ningham, which goes to the law court on
report, is one of more than passing interest
for it not only involves two continents but
two States and two counties and means to
the plaintiff the possible loss of her newly
acquired fortune of $4,000 Driven to the
courts to prevent division of her fortune.
her own brothers are the defendants in the
case, and opposing the prObatlng of the Will
they seek "a division of the property ana
funds left by another brother, who died in
China, and in whose will they were not re-
membered. The brothers are Edward X.
Cunningham of Washington, d; e., and "A A.
'I,nv rItnyl, IF
fourth member of the family living is Mrs.
Helen f. Berry of Ruckland, who is con-
tent to allow the fortune to fall to her sister.
Fighting against the disposal of fortune
left by a brother whom none OF them mad
seen for many years are found TWO DToth-
erS arrayed against two sisters, while
legal battle which began on the opposite
side of the world has been transferred to
the courts of Knox and Waldo counties, and
then to the law court. In institutlns the
suit, the brothers allege as their prln-
cipal reasons, that the writing left by the
as a will and that the consular court had no
jurisdiction. Hence, according to their
reasoning, the brother, Henry w. Cunning
ham, died inteState and the surviving BROTH
ers and sisters should share equally as
heirS-at-law Should the law court decide
favorablv to the brothers there will follow
a hard-fought civil suit for the recovery OF
the funds and their equal distribution.
Arthur s. Lttlefield appeared for Mrs:
Mather and the defence were represented
by White q Carter of Lewiston, Cotton y
White of Washington, d. c., and Dunton &
Morse of Belfast.
David NJ. Park VS.. Harriet A. Wentworth.
Dismissed for want of prosecution. Man
son. Ilussey
Charles F. Bessey VS. Thaddeus [. Hux-
ford, Exceptions Withdrawn. Dunton IL
Morse f. W. Brown, Jr.
Sophia Stap1pS libt VS. Horace StanlHS,
Dismissed without prejudice Hussey Bea-
ton.
In the action of Ann E. Webb VS.. Walter
Harvey, in which verdict OF So O5 was re-
turned for the plaintiff, a motion Tor ne"
trial was Overrued. This was an action
to recover for damage done to land by tres
pass and the cutting of hoop-poles on the
same
In the case of Mabel H. Knox VS.. Hattie
b. Rowe, new trial was granted on the
ground that the verdict was against the
evidence The action was brought to re-
cover on farm which was sold to the plain
tiff by the defendant and which the plaintiff
claimed was not as it was represented TO
her. The verdict returned by the jury was
in favor of the defendant
j. V. Raynes VS. Duplex Roller Bushlng
Company. Defaulted by agreement for $3.50,
without costs. Judgment satisfied. Mont
gomery. Ryder.
CRIMINAL DOCKET.
State VS. John Mellin, app. Search and
seizure. Ordered on file
State VS.. John A. Warren, app. Search
and seizure Ritchie. Ordered on file
State VS.. Robert Logan, app. Single sale.
Mcclellan Ritchie Mol pros.
State VS.. John A. Warren, app. Search
and seizure Ritchie. Ordered on file.
State VS.. John Avery, common seller.
Ordered on file.
State vs. Patrick L. Haley, common seller.
Mol pros.
State VS.. Patrick L. Haley, common nui-
sance. Mol pros.
State VS.. Edward Hanson, single sale.
Ritchie. Ordered on file.
State VS.. Edward Hanson, common seller.
Ritche Ordered on file.
State VS.. Robert Logan, single sale. Nc
Lellan. Ritchie. Mol pros.
State VS.. Robert Logan, single sale. Nc
Lellan. Ritchie. Mol pros.
State VS.. Robert Logan, common seller.
Ritchie. Mcclellan. Mol pros.
State VS.. Rudolf NJ. Cox. app. Intoxica-
ton. Mol pros.
State VS.. Daniel Magee, app. Search and
seizure. Mcclellan. Richie. Brown. Mol
pros.