The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1909-09-30
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
Judge William P. Whitehouse of Ano,s4.
Presiding.


Belfast, was tried before the first iurv W.
nesday, September 22nd and continued inte
Thursday. The action was brought to recove,
the sum of $117 and interest for five wears fo,
stones and bases ordered by the defendant and
placed on the lot of her late husband II A
Hoyt, in Grove Cemetery. They were of Oak
Hill granite and defendant maintained tho,
they were not perfect in color as ordered The
jury examined the stones at the noon recess
Wednesday. A. S. Littlefed of RockIand
conducted the plaintiffs case and Dunton &
Morse the defendants. The verdict was fo,
the plaintiff, with damages assessed at s153 IA
The case of Charles F. Hartman of San Fran.
cisco VS.. H. W. Hartman of Stockton Snr;nes
and Margaret A. Hartman of Quincy, Mass.
administrators, was continued 1t involved the
estate of Sarah Hartman of Stockton Springs
and was brought to recover loans to the de-
ceased amounting to 81, ,s66.45. Beaton, Little
field; Dunton & Morse.
The case of Luce against Carleton was non
suited. 1t was an action in trover DIR. Prince
E. Luce deposited $500 promissory note as
collateral for loan of $3.50 by Guy Carleton Of
the Megunticook National Bank The loan was
paid by third party, who took the note apc
paid DR.. Luce $780, The action was to recover
the note, which was give under date of April
1903, for four years.
The case of Oscar A. Shibles of Morrill,. VS.
Fred S. Walker of Belfast was opened before
the jury, but, was withdrawn and entered
neither party, a settlement having been
made. The action involved the sale of safe
by the defendant to plaintiff, for which the
latter paid in various articles and claimed he did
not receive proper credits therefor. Eben F.
Littlefield; Dunton & Morse
Thursday morning was taken up with will
case, an appeal from the decree of the Judge
of Probate, brought by Horace Myrick, who was
left out of the will of his mother, Amelia But
ters, who had made two wills, one January so,
1901, in Lowell, Mass, and one June 20, 1908,
in Burnham. The second will is made to con-
firm and make clear the first, in which the de-
ceased wished it to be clearly understood that
she intended to leave out the name of her son,
Horace Myrick. The contention is that when
the wills were made Mrs. Buffers was of un-
sound mind and that undue influence was
brought to bear. The three persons who wit
of Mrs. Buffers during her illness, testified
that in their opinion she was of sound
mind and capable of doing business ]. w
Manson of Pittsfeld appeared and identified
the will as that which he drew up in Burnham
year ago last June. A settlement was affect
cd hatU ha at nd bo Will
affirmed and allowed. Coolidge & Manson of
Pittsfeld appeared for the defendants and
Dunton & Morse for the plaintiff
In the afternoon the case of John C. King
against Amos F. Carleton, an action to recover
on what was claimed to be an illegal seizure of
household goods came up. The defense was
that the goods seized were office furniture.
The case was referred to the court withc ut a
jury trial.
The hearing of the equity case of H. Holton
Wood of Boston versus the Duplex Roller
Bushing company of this city, was assigned
for a. m. Thursday, but by request OF j. H.
Montgomery, Esq, who represents the F. c.
Pitcher interests (about 40 per cent of the
stock) the hearing postponed to Tuesday,
September 2Sth. The petition filed by Mr..
Wood asks that the court appoint a receiver
for the company, the petitioner having loaned
the said company during the past six years
$91 900. At the hearing Tuesday morning Ell
mer A. Sherman and E. F. Hanson were ap-
pointed receivers.
The action of Ira D. Cram vs.. Elisha j. Nor
ton, both of Liberty, an action to recover the
amount of about $40 for lumber furnished the
next term and assigned for trial. Richie for
plaintiff; Dunton & Morse for defendant.
Arthur P. Libby ct al, Admr's VS.. Ports
mouth, Kittery & York Street Railway Co.,
was assigned to the first day of the January
term, to be tried or dismissed. Rogers for
Abner w. Fletcher VS.. Chas. H. Merrill
Continued. Heath & Andrews; Thompson.
Kate L. Sanford VS.. Arthur H. Soden. To
be tried next term or dismissed. Dunton &
Morse; Thompson.
NJ. B. Smith VS.. Fields S. Pendleton. Parties
live in New Haven, Conn, and Islesboro. An
action to recover an amount due in caring for
and training horse. Continued. Dunton &
Morse for plaintiff. George E. johnson for de-
fendant withdraws and is succeeded by Fred
W. Brown.
The morning session Friday was taken up
with the case of Robertson VS.. Marden and a
cross suit of Marden VS.. Robertson. In the
first case Daniel l. Robertson of Swanville sues
Charles E. Marden, formerly of Swanvile now
of Belfast, for an account, including the bal
ance on payment for colt which plaintiff claims
he sold defendant, and for labor cutting wood
in the years 1905 and 1906, also for labor NOV
ing hay tedder and hay press. The defense
claimed that the colt in question was bought
of the plaintiffs father and that it did not con-
cern the plaintiff in any way; that defendant
had settlement with plaintiff May 16, 1906.
which settlement included all payment for cut
ting wood and that when the settlement was
made balance of $37 due the defendant from
plaintiff was paid to defendant by plaintiff s
note of hand. He claims that the charges of
$l5 for moving the hay press and S. for NOV
ing the hay tedder are exorbitant. In the
case of Marden vs. Robertson the defendant
admitted that he gave the note, but that he
had been unable to get settlement with Mar
den verdict of $1S29 for the plaintiff was
returned in the first case and for the defendant
in the second.
James E. Cunningham vs. Inhabitants of