The Republican journal., 1914-10-01
The Supreme Judicial Court.
Associate Justice George E. Bird Of Port
land, Presiding.

Associate Justice George E. Bird Of Port
land, Presiding.
CIVIL DOCKET.
William o Stoutenburg Of Arlington, N. Y,
vs. Emma d. Elms of Belfast. was opened to
the jury Thursday forenoon. This is an action
to recover on q 500 loan to the defendant
from her daughter, Laura Elms Webster, in
1912. Mrs. Webster later married Mr Stout
enbu.g and assigned the note to him.
There have been family troubles and this case
is one of others brought. 1t was entered at
the January. 1914, term and continued to this
term. The loan was made through the Bel
fast Savings Bank and charged up to Mrs.
Webster's savings bank book. Elon B. Gil
chrest, assistant treasurer. was witness to the
trans action Arthur Richie, attorney for the
plaintiff, had failed to record with the writ
the copy Of the assignment of Mrs. Stouten-
burg to her husband. as the law required, and
R. W. Rogers, attorney for the defendant,
asked the Judge to non-suit the case on this
neglect, and the request was granted, The
case will probably be brought up again as a
new case.
A last summers romance between Nelson v.
Rackliff of Worcester, Mass, and Miss Mar
jorie Cowan of East Orange. N. j., both SO.
iourners at Bayside, occupied the court Thurs
day afternoon. The plaintiff, young man of
% years. brought action to recover diamond
ring from the defendant, a girl of II years.
On motion that guardian be appointed. as the
law requires, the defendants mother, Mrs.
Mary E. Cowan, who was present with her
daughter, was appointed. The affair took
place in August, 1914, when young Rackliff
was visiting bis uncle, Eugene R. Conner, and
the girl was at a cottage at Bayside with her
mother. The young people became acquant-
ed and with two other young people autoed
to Searsport one Sunday evening and on their
return to Bayside in the evening occupied one
of the settees in the Park. The defendant
asked to wear the young mans diamond ring
this was. their second meeting and he allowed
her to take it. She placed it on her finger be-
low two other stone rings. Up to this point
both plaintiff and defendant agreed perfectly.
The young man accompanied Miss Cowan to
her home and at the door asked her to return
the ring, which he said he saw on her finger
at the time. She declined, saying that she
would take good care of it. The defendant
claimed that she did not have the ring on her
finger when she turned on the light as she en-
tered her room and with her mother tried to
find it the next morning. H. c. Buzzell for
the defence claimed that she lost the ring
fba 9th bar nof
responsible for its loss. R. F. Dunton for the
plaintiff maintained that it was impossible for
her to lose it off over the other two and that
it was for her to account for its disappearance.
He said the action did not involve larceny, but
carelessness on her part in not being able to
return the ring when the owner asked for it.
The case was similar to many we read about.
The Judge in charging the jury said it was an
action of trover. The jury after being out
over an hour came in for instruction in regard
to damages and were instructed to find on the
real value of the ring, with interest to date.
They brought in a verdict of $26 for the plain
tiff, although he claimed it was $1O0 ring and
he had paid $50 for it.
Next in order was "hoss" case. Bernes
o. Norton of Belfast sued to recover $100 for
horse sold John W. Hobbs of Brooks in May,
1914. The case occupied the court from about 3
p. m. until adjournment Thursday. There
seemed to be the best of feeling between the
parties and both were willing to have the jury
decide the case on its merits. Mr.. Norton tes-
titled that he sold the horse to Hobbs in May
for good one as far as he knew except that
he was little sore forward. If he hadn't
been he would never have sold him for 500
and as it was he considered him worth what
he asked for him in the first place, SIPS Hobbs
begged for him at $100 and Norton said he let
him go at that, Hobbs to send check for 500
when he got back to Brooks. He didn't do it
and word came down later that the horse was
worthless and would Norton come to Brooks
and get him. This Norton declined to do, and
said he should demand the check for him. In
this connection he remarke d: "If l had intend
ed to cheat John l should have demanded the
pay at the time" Fred Gray testified that he
offered Mr.. Hobbs $l00 for the horse before
they had reached the Phoenix House stable.
The witnesses for the defence, Harry E. Sta
pies. Augustus Clark and Guy Patterson Of
Brooks and DR.. Alden E. Sawyer of Waterville,
a veterinary, testified that the horse had fallen
on the way home. had fallen repeatedly, and
seemed paralyzed in his hind legs, and DR..
Sawyer diagnosed the case as spinal menin-
gifts, or black-water. and that he was worth
less. He said that he had put the horse to death
by chloroforming him. The case was contin-
ued Friday morning, when Messrs. Hobbs and
Staples were recalled and DR.. ". L. West was
called as an expert for the plaintiffs side and
said there was distinct difference between
black water and meningitis. Fred Carleton of
Rockport testified that he had known the horse
for four years, had driven him for the Rock
port Ice Co., and in April sold him to Don C.
Spaulding of Camden as a sound horse. Mr..
he sold the horse to Mr.. Norton about the mid
die of May and did not think he was diseased
horse. John Maddocks OF Monroe testified
that Mr.. Hobbs was willing to sell him the
horse for $3.50 and wanted him to come toBrooks
to talk the trade over. DR.. John B. Darling
a graduate of the Toronto, Canada, Veterinary
College, was also called as an expert. Many
times the audience was convulsed with laugh
ter until the Judge saw fit to emphasize the
Sheriff's warning. H. C. Buzzell for the plain
tiff maintained that the horse was injured in
the fall on the way to Brooks and that menin-
gifts developed from the injury, and that the