The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1853-02-05

he intended to make ofit and upon the exami-
nation of the testimony, l find no intimat;on
that +. X. Bartlett was not fully authorized to
execute and deliver the contract of settlement,
and 1t must, therefore, be considered under the
circumstances to have been satisfied by the
piaintiii or adopted as an act done by one hay
ing Story on .fgency, S242, ct Sc
quenfe) Assuming then that the instrument
was binding and obligatory upon the plaintiff.
what was the effect of it upon this acton, uney
planned or uncoutradicted?
1t wasciearly suspension Of the action until
the Mahoney note became due-the 18th of No
vember, 1852. And if the note was paid when
payable, and the costs of the action paid at the
same time. it was to be full discharge, release
and satisfaction in equity OF the entire cause of
action, or more correctly speaking, it was a re-
ceipt OF certain obligations with contract stip-
ulating that if Mahoney's note and the costs of
the action were paid when the note became due
the action should be released, discharged and
satisfied in full. This court has but little to do
with what transpircd in the attempt made to
explain (as it was called) the agreement of set
tlement But 1t is matter of curiosity to see
what was offered to be proved by the plaintiffs
agent or attorney: The written instrument
shows the receipt Of the Campbell draft, the
Mahoney note, and the draft of Kent and Maho-
ney, accepted by Daniel Mears, which accept
ance is described in terms to be received by
John b. Page the plaintitf) in account with the
ea'u Danlei Mears; NoW when the instrument
IN "iiting says this IN terms that the plalntiii
received it for such purpose and in such
way, can either tne law give 1t the construction
or permat the terms OF IT to be SO explained OR
aSrosateu a;n oy pafoi testimony, that the plain
t;.an! s;n my iIoei.eu ~ 70 noio ana counsel with
n. na nv: Mne'neI ns "ouiu take OF receive IL or
nst: LUIS would pe tne ehect OF the testimony
oaeleu oh one part OF inc plalntllf. The testi-
h'1n{ was ohefed' onjected TO and overruicd.
49,. "ne.ner 'nls rullns was correct or not, 1t is
lo' ~" my Pro, ince 10 declde ON the contra
Fy, can only iesitimatcly consider the testi-
mony actually admitted unohjccted to, and as
certain how far the terms of the written con-
tract were modified by such testimony. and
Wnether after giving 1t its full legal force and
eHect, tne action could be maintained, and this
verdict be supported.
bartlett says on the direct examination, that
he holds the MahOney note. the draft accepted
by MearS, and that he collected the Campbell
draft, and that he offered and rendered the same
to Theodore Parker. the defendants attorney in
this action. This shows most clearly that Bart
lett actually received the very things or chooses
in action specified and described in the receipt.
And have before decided that the witness re-
celving them as the attorney and agent of the
Z,
legal effect the plaintiff received them The
testimony IN detail shows that every provision
OF the written agreement of settlement was COM
Piled with on the part of the defendant. Yet
the witness, Bartlett in general terms tcstities
that '.the conditions of the agreement were not
complied with by Ghe deft.) himself, or his ct
torney or anybody in his behalf" 1t is very
questionable whether any effect whatever ought
to be given, or attention paid. to such whole
solo C,roopipr oc
When in detail both On the direct and cross
examination, he fatty and wholly contradicts
himself. When in particularizing. he proves the
most entire opposite, OF rather when he is ques-
TONED specially, his testimony directly conflicts
"itn MS oroaa' uhqualihed assertion, and on the
oon'r"ry periectiy harmonlZcs with the receipt
Ut agreement IN question. l think it would be
inequl.apie ana unsafe TO suffer verdict crest
upon sueh testlnony, so contradicted by itself
.'ts anu 50 conpie!eiy at war with solemnly exc
Iu'ee written instrument. made and executed
~ ;no wt.ness n,isec. Inc verdict is not only
aa.h?s '.h .ne "elsht OF evidence, but is without
to-, 'is my vi 1he name OF evidence to sus-
Janl,son ,.s rto.lH .a uosach' I cams reps. 70 );
Caha, w. :, no1ish, i cams reps. l62 !;
W;1i;a VIII - cupvh'; yu = ndna)ord Z6e tonrodvs
ao'ain 1nm ,,n,.,' IT.
II tbo,rI, bo p. & ~ oon.lact cahiot fescihd
be rot,,5n nn ns. y n"se suilcieht cause. unless
snh;ect matters ~ ~ W 'ne other al inc
farmer ~ tho .hu ueil.erea TO the
nartv attomn,iua ~ nasn; o' she contract. a
IS al,,e restnro tbo oth ~ aestu' mus. as f as ne
be was hofno ha .r W .ne position IN winch
Co,,tna.,. Sets Atue NJ .ae eeo'i'iact.-t Story on
stot,, n,,o ny m ne nius. put tne olher IN
and Of -. eiiete suilei!oeI Oh possession
tract ' ~, as'u al1 alaef the con-
sor ~, ~ ~ ,s i'i, n" zoo, Z9o Mas
Tb;s noror,I ,,-;na;1 n,ao a. Es'
torney anncared n o,e IN pr ,ng p.a.at'n or ms at
.,rartHy,, atp.tu tI., W ps aWare o. ana conse-
pote avd eu tho Woors ~ onet nach inc delendants
tender Of tho m,onon oo,ippo a.a 70 MAKE
draf, Thonnh 49, ! .olieo.eu t oh 'Ie oaihppeii
aronnd - o'thau;.a w no' pel:eHe ,ne silshiest
;n th;S csse fnr - resoinug m o' .ne contract
all w;thont tha oomm,;r,;o ~ o; ne uone usual, AT
MARTY oao;nst 1rbon, :, 10 ~ nauu ~ lne
ret ,it5nnt tho ofnr nd 10 tS ~ t =.
irmancs Of 4ho n.r. ru 'euei a 'neIe Is no dls-
scindedW(S om1bor;t;.. "Ia ,t ~ a1',ns ln uhre
,Sto,v nm Eont,octs Ssaa eN "'' o'00e 4"0'e" )
This disafIirmanee the nia;nt;ff in tried 70 ,coor,
nlsh bv maxine sucb ntsr and +ondov ~ 'toV ~ Wn
~ "A 'euuei W =" :.