Litchfield enquirer., 1878-07-11

let him make that small sacrifice to save his neighbor from destruction!
 At the close of the lecture vote of thanks in terms of high commendation was offered by Geo. M Woodruff Esq, and the speaker was warmly congratulated on the success of his first public effort in aid of the great reforma- ton so happily inaugurated in old Litchfield.
 The trial of claims against the estate of Christopher P. Wheeler which has been pro gressing from time to time before Messrs. Abi jah Catlin and James Huntington, commission CTS, at the Court room, was finally concluded on Wednesday last. In 1840 MT. Ambrose Collins, of Goshen, died leaving farm, stock, &c., to his two daughters, Laura and Maria. Soon after, Maria married Christopher F. Wheeler, who came to live with them, taking charge of the farm, and the entire management of the property, till the time of his death in 1877. The Ambrose Collins estate was owing about $1, 900, which indebtedness Mr. Wheeler appears to have paid of with his own money, taking the stock in payment for the sum so advanced. Mr. Wheeler was an industrious, shrewd farmer, his wife, and Laura Collins who continued to live with them, also worked hard and lived economically, and at the time of Mir. Wheeler's death, we understand that the estate was valued at not less than $26, ,0O0.
 The first question before the Commissioners was regarding the claim of Fessenden Ives, administrator of the estate of Laura Collins, against the Wheeler estate for portion of the profits arising out of his thirty-fve years management of her half of the Ambrose Col lins farm. It appears that he managed the business of the farm in his own name, sold it's produce and received the money, never ac- counting to Laura Collins therefor. MT. An drews, on behalf of her administrator claimed that the business relation between Mir. Wheel CT and his sister-in-law was that of partner ship; or, if not strictly partnership, that It was case of joint occupancy of real estate, and was therefore within the exception made by section 5 of the Statute of Limitations. MT. Graves, on behalf of Mir. Arthur D. Catlin, administrator of the estate of MT. Wheeler, denied that there had ever been any partner ship between, or any joint occupancy of the Collins farm by, Laura Collins and Christopher P. Wheeler. He asserted that MT. Wheeler had been in the sole occupation of the farm for the whele of the thirty five years after his marriage and before the death of Laura Col lins, and that the statute of limitations was perfect bar to any claim for division of profits that she had always been satisfied to have her support from her interest in the farm, and that it was too late now te attempt any differ ent arrangement from that with which the parties had themselves been satisfied. On the other hand, some admissions of MT. Wheeler were proved, as far back as 1S5O to the effect that the farm had been held in common.
 A second question arising before the Con- missioners was upon claim presented by cer-- tain nieces of Mrs. Wheeler for the share of his estate which came from his wife. The facts were these: Mir. 6 Mrs. Wheeler had no chil- dren, and she gave all her property by will to her husband, with the understanding, howev- CT, that he should will it to three nieces of hers, daughters of a MT. Chapin. MT. Wheel CT survived his wife but short time, and seemed much troubled in mind during his last days because he had not made will in accord ance with his wife's desire. He repeatedly stated that as soon as he got we'll enough he should go to Litchfeld and execute such a will, but got worse instead of better, and dIed with out carrying out his design. One of the wit nesses testified to Mr. Wheeler's having said that he had promised his wife to make the will in question. Others testified less decisively. MT. Andrews, in behalf of the daughters of Mr. Chapin, claimed that there was positive promise made Mrs. Wheeler by her husband to will her property to these nieces, and that her own will was made or allowed to stand unrevoked, because of her reliance on that promise. Such being the fact he claimed that Mir. Wheelsr's estate should be held liable for his failure to fulfil his promise. MT. Graves maintained, on the other hand, that the evil | dence showed no absolute promise on Mir.
 Wheelers part, but simple request and de-
 sire on the part of his wife with which he was
 anxious to comply. He held, however, that
 there could be no legal liability for non-com- pliance with such request. He further urg-
 dd that. the form of remedy open to the clai-
 ments, If any, was by petition in equity for a
 Specific performance" of the alleged contract
 The Commissioners now have these impor- tant claims under advisement, and much inter-
 est is felt in their decision. They adjourned till August 1st.