The Portland daily press., 1874-05-27

BEFORE JUDGE WALTON.
r TuEspAy-George A. Wiggin VS.. Edward 8.
Goodwin. Assumpsit on this note:
SOUTH BERWICK, Me-, Feb. q, 1871.
For value received. promise to pay, George A.
lSiened) EDWARD S. GOODWIN.
fWitness) HENRY A. STONE.
Defense-True, you are entitled to recover the
amount of that note less my se-of OF $40 note anu
interest amounting to Ss3O6, and private account
OF 5000, making $153.46, which you admit should
be deducted from your note at date, leaving $64654
From this claim another deduction in this wise l
bought out your half of the ladder business in which
we were some four and half years partners, and
gave this note in suit in payment. 1t was also agreed
that our partnership accounts, between ourselves
sheuld be equitably adusted that after ascertaning
what each had drawn out in excess OF what ne had
put in balance should be struck and the dlnerence
if in nv favor subtracted from this note We look
ed over, found you had drawn out from the hrm
s619.u i'm such excess more than 1. Deducting that
from S64654 leaves a balance $26.s3, your DUE
have offered to be defaulted for that sum with inter
est.
Reply-I first correct your error In method OF set
Ting partnership account, and in your statement
of the understanding there should be deducted not
$6l9 as you say but half of that, because half OF
that was my property, which would leave balance
due me of $336.o9 But by the written terms OF dis
solution of partnership you were to pay me Ssoo 1or
my interest therein and my sale to you OF my inter-
est in the firm "extinguished the claims OF the frm''
on me. So the full Court have said in this very
case.
Rejoinder-Yes, that is perhaps the grammatical
construction of that instrument, drawn up by MI
Stone our scrivener; but that instrument does not
clearly express what we in fact agreed to. The full
Court have nterpr eted the writing as you say They
also say it is competent for court of equity and
fortior for the parties to reform as they call it,
writing; which did not express our meaning; ana
after the contract was written you agreed to look
over the books and pay me such balance as we found
DUE The writing says personal accounts between
us are not included in this agreement" By person.
al accounts We understood not our private accounts
They would take care of themselves. After settling
our accounts with the company, the settling between
ourselves of the balance found on the partnership
books would be "personal account" We did after
signing agree to adjust the partnership balance be-
tween u.s. as above stated, in conformity not with
what the scrivener wrote, but with what we meant
to express in the writing. Such a reforming the
law allows.
Plaintiff again-It takes two to make bargain.
never agreed to anything different from the writing
The writing expresses the agreement as made 1t
and not as you now interpret it, and your wife ano
our brothers law testify. claim the balance
ypote S64654 and interest to this date
Court-Gentlemen, you may take the case as thu
arties choose to submit it. Ifplantiff's theory il
orrect give HIM his claim $773.15- Hthe defendant
correct give him S32.Os Verdict for plaintiff $773l5
Yeaton for plaintiff Copeland for defendant.
George w. Gray VS.. William Jones. Assumpsi
on note $780, dated July 49, 1872 at Scarborough DE
fense-a bogus note forged by patent right vende
of scythe grinders-H. B. Rourke. Verdict for tn
defendant.
Hobbs for plaintiff
BID Verrn for defendant.