Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-11-11
SUPREME COURT.
Case Of Enner, vs.. Pink
ham Now on Trial.
Trouble Is Over Boundary Of
Land al the Outlet.
Expected That Verdict Will Be
Reached This Afternoon.

the supreme judicial court Was taken
up with the hearing of the witnesses
for the plaintiff in the case of }. +.
Pinkham vs.. J. W. Emery in con-
troversy over disputed title Of land on
the shore Of Lake Cobbosseecontee
The land in question comprises about
two acres OF the shore territory of the
lake % rods east OF the steel span
over til" CnbboSSrecuntcc stream, bet
ter known. as tie outlet. The dispute
in brief is that the plaintiff claims 3.
rods east Of It willow tree that marks,
a." he claims the former shore of the
lake near the Old bridge where the
steel span now stands. The defendant
claims that the land of the plaintiff
runs 81 rods east of the end of the steel
span and what is at present the shore
line. If the plaintiff is correct the de
PENDANTS dwelling is on the land of
the Plaintiff: on the other hand, if the
defendant is right then the blacksmith
shop of the plaintiff is on the land
owned by the defendant. and 50 taken
in all, it is rather 4 compleXed situa
ton on both sides.
The first witness was Henry +. Hill
of Augusta. His testimony was Civ
en- as an expert civil engineer on the
technical points OF the measurements
of the land in controversy and the
surrounding view points relative to
the deed reading of the land in ques-
ton. MIR. Hill, on the request of both
parties concerned, had made two sur
veys of thesvicinity and he was asked
for explanations and measurements
which applied to the map Of the Pink
ham and Emery estates which he had
made and which were used as exhibits
in the case.
During the examination and cross
examination of Mr.. Hill. at a moment
when all attention was centered on
the witness. one of the attorneys. i'm
his eagerness to inspect the map
which was on exhibition, perched
himself on a chair in the witness
stand in order to get Il closer view
Although the chair was a substantial
! one, the attorney is by no means a
small man. and as a result of the
weight on the chair it collapsed, send
| ing him spra Wing to the court room
| floor with resounding thud
After the testimony OF Mr. Hill was
| Mrs. Finkham is the true owner of
the' land. while Harrison b. Pinkham
| acts as manager '.nd agent for her,
and with her full consent acts in all
matters concerning the business of the
estate. She described what she
thought to be the original boundaries
of the purchased land and gave in
brief what changes had been in the
vicinity under the direction Of Mr.
Pinkham.
| Harrison Pinkham was the next
witness. He stated the boundaries of
the land as he understood them from
the time of the purchase. He illus
| trated on the map that was displayed
| in court the changes he had made in
the general outline of the land and
| described its affect on the portion OF
| land under dispute. Mr. Pinkham
stated that the small strip of land be-
tween tn road and the water which is
at present under discussion had been
s." aside by both Mr.. Emery ana him
IF fur III" use Of both parties and
any ether persons that might have use
OF it for landing and although he
claimed that his land ovcrlapped that
| portion hy several feet he had been
satisfied to let the agreement stand
| Elt Ii" claims now that Mr.. Emery
| did not live up To- his agreement in the
| matter and claims more land than is
warranted him. So Mr.. Pinkham il.
Sueias for the land that he claims
originally belonged ia his part and
which h" SAYS extends several feet
int" the disputed territory.
III" testinl. NJ Of Mr. Pnllham COM
i''ctcd I'll" morning session ana court
WAS adjourned until 80 p. NJ.
The afternoon session began with
| the testimony Of John Within IN old
IN 9idrnt Of that part of the country.
| Mr.. Within stated that he had worked
for both parties at different during the
past 80 years. He was questioned on
the old boundaries Of the two lots Of
| Iaud before the present owners had
got possession of them IN his mind
he could not Sc" that there had been
| any change in the Slore line or that
the improvements made by Mr.. Pink
! ham had III amy way affected tie rails
| ing of tn" water.
After the testimony of Mr.. Within.
tn" defence BEGAN its case Mr. Bur
| leigh, one Of the attorneys for the de-
fence. stated that his client claimed
| that there had been a change of the
shore lire. in fact it had been changed
trer endous!y since the filing of the
original deed Of the land which was
filed in 1858. He said that this was
cue tn the installation of The dam at
u" outlet and because of tn" changes
in the rGadbed. and sea wall along the
shore
civil Engineer Henry Hill was again
called to the stand to verify some
inea&urei @el.tS that Sec;3cd to puzzle
the attorneys.
The greater part Of the afternoons
testllnoA: vas given by j. w. Emery,
the Z fendant. MIR Emery stated that
thci| had been no controversy until
AR. I'nnhaI had encroached on his
land ~ ,rNing to remove his. the
ptaInti.l :, blacksmith shop over what
ffhe defendant claims is his boundary
line 4 vas during this attempt to
move n" building that the alleged
settlement as to the boundary was at
| tempted. But Mr. Emery claims that
fe could not make any SORT of CATTLE