Ellsworth American., 1916-04-19
HANCOCK s. J. COURT.
vorR CIVIL GASES TRIED DUR
ING WEEK.
.xn Jury RETURNS LONG LIST OF
,YprcrMENTs - CRIMINAL CASES
NOW BEING TRIED.

c;vi. cases have been tried during
rv ,,ast week, and yesterday the criminal
a,ctat was taken up. Court took recess
ussr to- day Patriots day.
scAMMoN VS.. MEADER.
rhs first case tried for the term was a
case. Gleason Scammon, OF Frank
~, sought to recover 40 alleged to be
III, an a horse sold by him to Carroll
Msaaer. OF Ellsworth. The horse was one
VIA by Mr. Meader to MIR. Scammon few
Ssvs before, and which did not prove
ss;,stactory. Mr.. Scammon brought back
~ horse. and sold it back to MIR. Meader.
~ breach OF warranty on the first sale
sss claimed, however, and the case WIS
confined to the sale by MIR. Scammon back
10 Mr.. Meader. .
The contention was, first, as to the pur-
chase price agreed upon, and second, as to
sbe amount OF money actually paid. Plain
in claimed the purchase price was f120;
Thai defendant gave him go at the time OF
.hs sale and later sent him go, leaving, as
he claimed, . balance OF 80 due. De-
tsndant claimed that the price agreed upon
was 500, that he paid 80 At the time OF
the sale and later sent 20, and therefore
owed plaintiff nothing.
The jury returned verdict for the
p,sintiff for fa1.06. W. B. Blsisdell for
plaintiff; g. b. Stuart for defendant.
SAUNDERS vs.. BUNKER.
An Otter Creek land case, Arthur q.
Saunders VS.. Mary A. Bunker, went on
trial Friday. 1t was an action for tres
rsss for obstructing . right of way.
Plaintiff is a grandson and defendant is q
daughter OF the late David Bracey, who
formerly owned all the land, involved in
the case In the partition OF the property
among the heirs, Mrs Bunker and the
mother OF the plaintiff received adjoining
lots bordering on the county road. The
mother OF the plaintiff had previously
been decided By her father IN acre OF land
back from the county road. From this
lot a travelled way led to the county road
diagonally across the piece that became
the property OF Mrs. Bunker by the part
iton proceedings. Plaintiff, some fifteen
wears ngo, received the original acre lot
and the partition lot by deed from his
mother. He continued to use the way to
the county road across his aunt's property
until last fall, when II was obstructed by
q fence. The suit followed.
Plaintiff claimed that = right OF way
had been esta plished by continued and
uninterrupted use prior to the time OF his
ownership. Defendant claimed that while
a right OF way OF necessity from the acre
plot existed prior to the partition of the
property, II had then ceased to exist, and
the plaintiff, having owned the property
and used the way only fifteen years, had
ihlieu 10 Itknk VI way uiHHstft-
After evidence for plaintiff was in,
counsel for defendant made q motion for
nom suit, which was sustained by the
Court. r. N. Benson and II. l.. Graham
appeared for PLAINTIFF Deasy & Lyman
for defendant.
pEyEREUx VS. sIIsBY.
The third case tried for the term, that OF
the Devereux Co., OF Castine, vs.. Forrest
0. siisby. sheriff. presented an interest
ing proposition, and was in many respects
unique. The issue was the amount OF care
which an officer must exercise over prop
erty in his custody under attachment.
The plaintiffs were the owners OF the
small steamer Corinna, upon which an at
tachment vas placed by Deputy Sheriff
Norris l.. Grindeil. The steamer was tied
up at wharf at West Brooksyilie, and the
wife OF Capt. Benjamin Arey, who lived
close by, was made keeper. The attach
ment was placed on the steamer in May.
In September she was burned at the harf,
the fire apparently originating inside the
steamer, and generally believed to be in
centiary. The Devereux Co. brought the
action against sheriff 6iisby, as RESPONSE
BILE for the acts OF bis deputies, for the
sum OF ti7 500, which they claimed to be
the value OF the steamer.
The case hinged upon the question
whether the officer exercised due care in
the protection OF the property. The PLAIN
tiffs claimed a wstchm man should have been
kept aboard the steamer nights, but evil
denee was produced by the defendant to
show that II was not the custom to keep
watchmen aboard steamers OF this size
when laid up, and that the owners OF the
steamer themselves, when they laid her
up at various times and places, never kept
waite hman aboard.
ID. E. Hurley appeared for plaintiffs;
Deasy Lyman for defendant. The jury
Fnf ff.~t Nd g. A-1
srRoUT vs. LAwFoRD.
The fourth and last civil case tried for
the term was that of Ora g. Strout VS.
Henry A. Lswford, both OF Bar Harbor.
This was an action on account for S2D.75.
Defense waa paYment OF the bill by credit