Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1916-10-18

Citation b. Higgius..-..--.t -.....-..-.. Eden
II. o. Johnson-.-.-..-...--..-. -.-.....sullivan
calvin Martin ....... ..-...-.......... Hancock
L.ynn NJ. scs,tt- Ellis worth
Albion Z. sherman .----.............-..... Eden
Ira Z. sts'ver...- .Bluehill
INTERMEDIATES.
Alden II. Mann ....-...-... Buoksport
The October term OF the supreme court
is draw ing to q close. Final adjournment
is expected Tomorrow or Friday. The
CRIMINAL docket probably will be reached
this afternoon.
The trial OF civil cases began Thursday.
we're empaneIled as above.
CHRISTMAS TREE CASES
The arst case tried was that OF William
o. Emery, OF Sullivan, vs.. w. 8. and U. 8.
Goss, OF oriand, as partners. This was
followed by the case OF w. B. Estabrook,
OF Sullivan, against the same defendants.
Percy l. Aiken appeared for plaintiffs in
both cases, and Raymond Fellows for the
defendants.
These were the Christmas tree cases,
growing out OF q Christmas tree-c cutting
operation at Sullivan and Sorrento early
last winter BY the defendants. Mr..
Emery's claim was for trees sold at one
cent each, while Mr.. Esta brooks claim
was for labor, trees ana other items-
While the bills were different, and the
evidence varied somew hat, the principal
issue was the same in both cases.
W. 8. Gross, one OF the defendants, has
gone into bankruptcy. Piaintiffs claimed
that the Christmas tree operation Gas
carried on - partnership, or in such =
manner as to allow q fair inference that
partnership existed between the
brothers, and that U. 8. Gross was liable
as surviving partner.
U. 3. Gross, defending the cases,
claimed that no partnership existed be-
tween his brother snd himself; that they
carried on separate AMI distinct opera
tions, though they divided expenses on
some matters, As in camping together and
employing but one cook to save expense;
that their trees were marked to dis
tinguish them, and that it should have
been common knowledge TO the plaintiffs
from this and other facts that be and his
brother were carrying on separate opera
tions; that the claims presented were
against w. s. Gross, and that he, U. s.
Gross, was not liable.
The jury found for the defendant in
both cases. There are seven Other cases of
the same nature on the docket, but after
the verdict in these two cases had been
returned, these were continued.
HURD VS.. HIGGINS
The case OF Daniel Hurd, of Bar Har-
Dor, against Coiburn Higgins, OF Bar Har-
Dor, was the next tried. This was an
action for damages for personal injuries,
and for damage to carriage, resulting
from q collision between a carriage driven
by the plaintiff and an automobile driven
by the defendant near Huil's Cove last
December. Each claimed the other re-
sponsible for the accident. z. N. Benson
appeared for plaintiff, and Deasy & Lyman
for defendant. The jury returned a YER
dict for the plaintiff for s1s.75.
HOWARD VS.. HOWARD.
The case of Arthur r. Howard VS.. Al
bertine g. Howard, was tried Monday
The plaintiff in this case brought suit
against his sister as executrix OF the es-
| tate of his father, w. NJ. Howard, to re-
cover from the estate one-half the princi-
pal and interest on note for $500 which
hie father signed with him.
Defendant claimed that w. NJ. Howard
was merely an accommodation endorser
for bis son, and the payment Of the note
and interest BY the plaintiff released the
estate from the obligation. f. 3. Snow
appeared for plaintiff; Coggan & Coggan
for defendant. The jury returned q YER
dict for defendant.
WOOSTER VS.. FIsKE.