The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1867-05-21
find /; necessary to carefully consider the evil

find Il necessary to carefully consider the evil
dence nearest to that point Of time.
The deed appears to have been sign
ed in the presence of Mr.. McGuier
who it is said has deceased. Wheth-
er any other persons were at the time
OF signing does not appear. From the
testimony of Mr. Steele it appears ne was there
before and Immediately after, on the same day
Both parties claim that his testimony supports
their several theories.
From his testimony it will seem that sometime
before the tenth of July he bargained for the lot
for $1,000. That before the bargain was execu-
ted Mrs. Neal refused to have the matter con-
summated unless he paid $500. That he fl
naily concluded to do SO and took a deed carr-
ed 1t to the Register of deeds, and left it for
record. That was about the 10th OfJuly. Ihat
between this time and the 9th day of July, he
bargained with Croker for the lot for $oooo.I
That his wife being absent i'll w waterford, hr
Croker declined to take the deed without her
signature, and he therefore procured deed oi
MIR. Neal and wife directly To Crocher' anu ie
ceived his own notes; ana tI;tI ne gave MT
Neal S12OO of the advance he had received. He
states also conversation ne hau Win MT. Neal
about the negotiations.
It is contended from this testimony upon
the one side, that it appears that Stephen
Neal was of sound mind, as is evidenced by
his conversations related.
on the other side it is said the manner in
which this convey ance was obtained is full
evidence of the lncapacity of Neal, and that II
was apparent to Steele. That you cannot ac-
count Tor the giving up of $1,000, and the sub
stitution of Meals deed to Crocker for Steele's
upon any other hypothesis than his incanaciry
to convey.
All The circumstances connected with that
transaction are competent for your considera-
ion t IN arriving at the true answer to the
question presented to you; and so far as they
Affect the credibility of Mr.. Steele, they are
competent for your consideration.
Inc OPINION of DIR. Harlow has been oie1-
ca III the case upon the basis that certain
facts were proved. This opinion has been gwen
before YOU and again read from the reporters
minutes and fully commented on py couhsei
upon both sides.
From all the evidence then, was Stephen
Neal at the time of the signing and de-
The second question you will perceive relates
to the capacity of Stephen Neal at the time in
question.
as to the cause or name of the unsoundnesS
which made him what the law denominates
non con,pos--all those matters need not now
be discussed.
The question relates to his capacity to I'M
destand and comprehend the transaction in
question.
1t is not whether he could understand the
ordinary business of life, but whether he could
and did comprehend the transaction in aues-
ton. If he could not understand and transact the
ordinary business of life it may be evidence
~ Won will judge if it necessarily does.
W ma is or is not the ordinary business of life
H., De difficult to determine, and may depend
upon the peculiar business or situation of the
party under examination. You will Judge
whether the ordinary business ola farmer, is
the same as that of a merchant. Each might
be quite ignorant of the daily business routine
of the other.
The question here put attracts your attention
to the transaction in question.
What the legal effect an answer to that
question shall be, it is not now necessary that
L should instruct you.
Going then all over the evidence in this case
bearing upon the question you will answer the
question. .l.I
Upon this question as well as upon the other,
you will examine the evidence with reference
To the time when the deed was signed and de-
liyered. l do not propose to go over the evil
dence bearing upon these questions. leave it
entirely to you to answer these plain simple in
quiries.
The third question is designed to ascertain
why he did not comprehend, if he did not,
whether 1T arose from an unsoundness of mind.
You may now retire and consider these ques-
lions, and when you have answered them you
may come into court Tor further instructions.
The jury having returned and answered the
first question as follows: ''That they were I'M
able to agree upon definite answer to it."
and to the second question as follows, "Yes,'
the court instructed the jury that upon this
finding their verdict must be for the defendant.
and such a verdict was accordingly rendered.