The Portland daily press., 1876-10-21
Supreme j judicial Court
BEFORE JUDGE VIRGIN.

BEFORE JUDGE VIRGIN.
FRIDAY.-The case of Mussey, Administrative, VS.
Mussey was called on.
This is a suit brought by Mrs. Susan W. Mussey
widow of the late Charles Mussey, Esq, to recover
from John Mussey, Esq, the sum of $4,000, with in
terest, which the plaintiff claimed defendant owed
her husband, and agreed to pay for valuable con-
sideration, on the 2ith OF November 1885, as follows
PORTLAND, Nov "a, 1856
Brother Charles,-The building OF Mussey's Row,
which was destroyed by fire short time after nv
return in June last, has occupied pretty much the
whole OF my thoughts, as well as time, this season.
that you might rely for such pecuniary aid as
during our lives Although nv verbal assurance
would be sufficient for that purpose generally cir
cumstances might happen, which would render
written one more satisfactory to your feelings and
position.
To this end therefore, hereby engage to appropri-
ate seven hundred dollars annually, the same to be
paid you semi-annually, in the months Of January
and July in each year, SO long as you and shall
live. And authorize you to call on my attorney,
powered to pay the same at the times aforesaid and
charge such payments to my account, Should you
survive me, you will find have already provided in
my will for the continuance of the payments OF the
same amount annually during your lite.
Mr.. Charles Mussey, Portland. -- 49, ''
The defendant, MI. John Mussey, says, in de-
fence, that he never promised within six years of the
ute vi tue pintH WTl anu relies upon the statute
oflimitations and other defences.
The plaintiff puts in the original agreement on
which the suit is based; also Charles Musseys deeds
conveying one-haf Mussey's Row, OH Middle and
Temple streets, as guaranty of $4,000 endorse
ments; also an assignment OF his one-quarter inter-
est in the Merrill property, including Merrill wharf;
also two agreements of John Mussey, one to recon-
vey Musseys Row on repayment of advances, and
tha other n he fnr
from the Merrill mortgage, both dated after the
above deeds.
The plaintiff claims that the above transfers, par
tcuary that of the Merrill property, showed an I'M
adjusted condition of the accounts between John
and Charles Mussey at the date of the obligation in
suit, sufficient to establish consideration, for
though the Row transaction has been, perhaps bar
red now it was open at that time; and the transac-
ton concerning the Merrill property was never
closed and is perhaps still open at the present day
and that John Mussey, having foreclosed on Thomas
Merrill, and so come into Charles Mussey's quarter
interest," bound to account for it. The plaintiff
then showed by Mr.. Abner Shaw, who bought the
properly, that Merrifs wharf-which was about
one-half ofthe ilerrill property-was sold by John
Mussey for $4,000, for quarter of which, plain.
tiffs claim, he should have accounted to Charles
They also show by deeds that John Mussey still
tains portion of the above Merrill property, and
show by S. Il. Beckett that it lis worth about $685.
900.
The plaintiff put Mr. John Rand on the stand who
testified to conversations between himself and John
Mussey, in relation to the original paper in suit at
or about the time it was given to Mr. Charles Mus
sey; that for some years payments were made on
this paper, he making some of them as Johns agent
that for six years before Charles Musseys death he
knew of no such payments being made; that Charles
Mussey was very much enfeebled the last year of his
life and was very poor; that while Mr.. John Mus
sey claimed that his brother Charles was much in
debted to him, Charles always denied it. and said he
had overpald John; that he had often heard Charles
Mussey claim that John was indebted to him on &C
count of the matter growing out of real estate
veryp9ntedly within three years of his death, and
that willie the payments were being made on the
agreement he never made such claims.
Objection was made by the defence to Mr. Rand's
testimony, on the ground that he John Mussey's
legal adviser at the time.
MIR. Rand stated that he had been brought into
court on a subpoena, AMI that while he undel stood
he protected from divulging his clients secrets
and should never do so, in the above matter Mr.
John Mussey did not ask legal advice but acted en-
tirely on his responsibility.
Thi. is substantially the plaintiffs case and here
she rested.
Argument for defense closed.
Sargent-Putnam for plaintiff.
SWeat-N. Webb for defen dant