Radio Script #807

Little Talks Common Things

May 18, 1969

Most of us older folk have heard stories of bitter quarrels between families over the boundary line between their adjoining lands. Such a quarrel took place in Waterville nearly a century ago, and that very bitter dispute over a small piece of land lasted for fifteen years. Involved were two of Waterville’s most prominent families, descendants of Nathaniel Gilman and Timothy Boutelle.

When those two men died; within two years of each other, in the 1850’s, they were regarded as Waterville’s wealthiest citizens, and their holdings of lands and buildings extended to all parts of the town.

In 1809 Gilman had bought all that then remained undivided of Lot 104 in the heart of Waterville’s business section. The original lot. 40 rods on the river, extended a mile back to the First Rangeway, but by 1809 several pieces had been sold especially along Main and Front Streets. It was in 1818 that, in similar fashion, Timothy Boutelle bought what remained of the adjoining Lot 105. bordering Gilman’s lot on the north. On it Boutelle erected. near the corner of West Temple and Main Streets, the first business block built in Waterville. and named it the Phoenix Block. In 1842, when his daughter married Edwin Noyes, Boutelle built for the couple a magnificent home on Temple Street. That was the building that was for several years used as the quarters of the local YMCA until the opening of the Harris Y at the corner of North and Pleasant Streets.

Nathaniel Gilman and Timothy Boutelle not only lived peacefully. with no land dispute, but they actually made many deals in partnership, as is testified by documents preserved at the Waterville Historical Society. After both of the patriarchs died, however. trouble began. Mrs. Gilman, much younger than her husband, for some reason strongly disliked both Edwin Noyes and his wife, Helen Boutelle. Abetted by Gilman’s oldest son, she became obsessed with the idea that the long accepted line between Lots 104 and 105 was wrong. She conceded that part of the land between Main Street and the Kennebec, which that line showed as belonging to her, actually was owned by the Boutelle heir, Mrs. Noyes, but that west of Main Street the true line ran farther north, thus giving her a triangular piece of additional land all the way to the Messalonskee.

Now the old line, established by the McKechnie Survey of 1768, had been recognized early in the 19th century, when the proprietors erected and maintained a fence between Lots 104 and 105. Since that time more than a century and a half has elapsed, and most present citizens of Waterville know nothing about the location of those very important lots on which developed the early retail trade of this community.

Today the urban renewal development called the Concourse occupies parts of those very lots 104 and 105.

Thanks to a drawn plan, long in the possession of the Heath family, we have exact information about those two lots., and the particular boundary in dispute. A careful study of that plan reveals to any modern resident just where those -two big McKechnie lots originally lay. The line between those lots did not cross Main Street at rectangles; or rather, it is more accurate to say that, when Main Street was laid out, it did not cross at right angles the lot lines that the McKechnie Survey had already designated.

Originating on the river bank about half way between Temple Street and the Ticonic Bridge, the line between Lots 104 and 105 as shown on this plan ran northeasterly across Main Street, and passed through the southwest corner of the old Ticonic Bank building, which adjoined the Phoenix Block to the south. Many people remember the Phoenix Block very well, for its southern half housed a drug store for more than 100 years. Among its proprietors were George Dorr, Jim Allen and Bob Dexter. On the south side of Main Street, toward the river, the line passed through what is now the north side of the Sterns store.

Because the disputed lines spread apart as the land extended westward, Mrs. Gilman claimed as hers a much larger slice than she conceded to the Noyes family. In 1869 she brought suit to obtain possession of the land, but the court issued a verdict in favor of Mrs. Noyes. Mrs. Gilman was, however, a woman of stubborn determination, and she would not give up. Her attorneys kept uncovering new evidence and litigation continued, with several trials, all decided against the Gilman claim, until a final, decisive verdict in 1884 gave Mrs. Gilman no further basis for another suit. So the feud and it was indeed a feud — went on from 1869 to 1884, a period of 15 years,

An important item in the dispute was a well, which Mrs. Gilman claimed had been illegally dug by Boutelle. That well was about 20 feet in from the south side of Temple Street just a short distance below the Congregational Church. From it Boutelle had laid a log aqueduct to carry water down to the Phoenix Block, and from it, through a lead pipe, water was pumped to the Noyes home on the height on the north side of Temple Street. Eight times the Gilman family moved the line fence farther to the north, each time placing it right across the top of the well, and eight times Edwin Noyes had his workmen move it back again.

Let us see if we can get some idea of what the area looked like in the 1870’s. There was no Charles Street, no Haviland Street. The area where in our day, until the making of the Concourse, stood the garages on Haviland and Charles Streets was bog, where there was enough water for children to skate in the winter. Then, toward Temple Street, the land rose gradually. Obviously the more land Mrs. Gilman could claim and secure north of the old McKechnie line, the better her part of the area would be.

Even as long ago as 1870 there stood on the southwest corner of Main and Temple Streets the long, oddly shaped building that was torn down only a few years ago. Across Temple Street on the northwest corner stood the Burleigh Block. South on Main Street the plan indicated the Phoenix Block, the Ticonic Bank. and an unmarked building.

Across Main Street the plan indicated several buildings, but did not identify them. As for West Temple Street, the only building on the north side between the Burleigh Block and Elm Street was the Noyes home. On the south side, near where Charles Street was later put through, the plan showed a building labeled “Walker’s Shop”, then a vacant lot behind which stood Walker’s residence. One other residence was a large building marked “Mrs. Fifield”. The only other structure on the street was the Congregational Church. We must understand, therefore, that the area where the scene of the Gilman-Noyes dispute was most active was, in the 1870’s relatively uninhabited.

The building marked Walker’s Shop is revealed by the Maine Business Directory of 1880 as having been the blacksmith shop of Frank Walker, who was then one of Waterville’s six blacksmiths. The others were M.l. Ballentine on Front Street, Hill and Simpson and John McFadden, whose shops were both on Common Street, and the shops of C.P. Sherman and O.C. Stevens on Silver Street.

In 1877 the controversy over the line fence erupted into violence. To tell the story now 90 years afterward is no violation of either family secrets or good taste, for the whole story is in the public domain, and the best way for me to tell it is to give it to you word for word as it was published in the Waterville Mail. That paper’s issue of October 12, 1877 contained the following story: “Yesterday, just after dinner, the peaceful denizens of Temple Street were treated to one of those disgraceful rows that sometimes afflict the best behaved communities.

“For several years past there has existed a disputed line between land of the Gilman heirs and land of Edwin Noyes on the south sjde of Temple Street near the Congregational Church. An attempt was lately made to settle it by survey, but the result was not satisfactory to the Gilmans.

“About 1 p.m. on Thursday,Mr. Noyes being in Rhode Island, Charles and Frazier Gilman appeared on the disputed line, accompanied by a dozen workmen, and proceeded to remove the fence, having first stretched a line running parallel with it some three feet over on the Noyes side. At this stage appeared George Flood, who resides in the Noyes family. He stated that he came at the request of Mrs. Noyes to give the Gilmans legal notice to desist from their trespass and removal of the fence. When the Gilmans refused to remove the line they had set up on which they intended to place the fence. Flood removed the line himself. whereupon he was struck and violently grappled by Charles Gilman. When Frazier Gilman attempted to assist his brother, he was pulled off by a big man who works for Noyes. By this time a considerable audience had gathered. and the offending line had again been moved by the Gilmans and again cut by Flood; This was repeated half a dozen times. At one stage someone swung a shovel that knocked Flood to the ground. He was carried to the Noyes house and a physician was called. ”

The next week, in its weekly issue of October 19, the Mail had an even more exciting story. Here it is, like its predecessor, word for word as the Mail printed it:

“Those who read. last week, our account of the fracas connected with the line fence between the lands of Mr. Noyes and Mrs. Gilman will remember that we confined our account to the day on which it occurred. We detailed, as truly as we could, the various incidents of that collision, leaving George Flood badly injured.

“Mr. Noyes returned from Rhode Island on Friday, and as the field of battle is in the very heart of the village. it required only a few hours of Saturday forenoon to spread the word that the fun would soon be resumed. By that time the Gilmans had actually moved the fence.

“At 1 p.m. a dozen men, directed by Noyes. appeared on the north side of the disputed line. For a moment all was quiet on the Gilman side, but an audience was fast gathering on Temple Street and at the corner of the church. The spade of each of Noyes’ men was promptly at the foot of a fence post. when a loud bang issued from a hole in the high board fence at the rear of the Gilman garden. ‘Gilman’s shooting’, was the cry while other voices said, ‘It’s only blank cartridges.’ The spades continued to work steadily until a second shot, followed at once by a third, revealed that the gun was not loaded with blanks.

“At this point Sheriff Carleton and Officer Dow advanced to arrest Charles Gilman, who could be plainly seen with a shotgun in one hand and a rifle in the other. The sheriff’s warning brought the reply. ‘You go and tell the people in the street to go home. I don’t want to hurt them. It’s Noyes I want. I’ll shoot him.'”

The officers overpowered Gilman and took him to the lock-up, where another firearm, a seven-shooter, was taken from his pocket.

“Afterwards it was ascertained that John Flood, of Mr. Noyes’ forces had received a shot in the leg below the knee and another in the shoulder. Several others of Noyes’ workmen had minor wounds.

“Gilman cooly justifies all he has done and expresses no regret. He says he has only protected his mother’s rights.”

The Grand Jury at Augusta indicted Gilman for assault with a deadly weapon. He was tried and convicted, but whether he ever served any prison term the old newspaper accounts do not make clear. Anyhow. after his mother’s death he was around to file a new claim in 1883. and only gave up all further attempt after the court’s decision in favor of Mrs. Noyes in 1884.

Year: 1969