The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1880-01-29

A'le SIdleheLL OF the plalntiH, ON
the other hand, Is i'll entire accord with,
and therefore is fully supported by the
prior history of the deed, not only as
found i n her evidence, but as. written
in the conduct of NJ. v. Boughton:
To believe that she signed under
s~tandingly. is to introduce such antag-
onism OF fact, such contradiction and
confusion into the case, as would frus-
trate all rational effort to eliminate
the truth. The existence of the paper
points directly to the idea that she was
deceived into signing it. She explained
that she was called upon by NJ. ".
Boughton and Stevens to witness 10 as
a paper relating to business between
themselves, in which she was not inter-
ested; that, believing them, she con-
scented, that it was put upon the table
Tor her to sign, and Boughton, holding
his hand over and upon it, as if to
steady it for her, but SO as to cover its
contents from her, she signed, where
they told her to sign; and that it was
neither read by or TO her, nor stated to
her. She adds that no one wrote upon
1t on the occasion but herself, that hay
ing obtained her signature, they went
away with the paper. According to
this she did sign in ignorance of the
paper and under deception, and Stevens
attestation, which is on the instrument,
must have been put upon it after he
and NJ. V. Boughton had left; a cir
cumstance that tallies with the idea of
deception; for had it been put on in her
presence in the usual way of a regular
bona Jfde attestation, it would probably
have, at least might have attracted her
attention, and put her upon her guard.
Her explanation is plausible in itself;
her credulous confidence as a woman
and her habitual trust in NJ. v. Bough-
ton made it easy to deceive her; suspi-
ciousc conduct, which might well escape
her observation at the time, would
readily occur to her afterwards upon
discovering what the paper was.
Her explanation is corroborated by
Celia Bryant, and is thus doubly forth
fed by the evidence of an eye witness,
and the antecedence and sur
roundings of the case. l cannot ac-
cept the evidence of Stevens as over
coming this volume of proof, letting
alone the further fact hat the face of
his deposition shows in several places
the footprints of a swift and more Than
willing witness. l have no doubt that
NJ. V. Boughton either when he deliv-
cred the deed to the plaintiff in 1871,
or afterward, entertained the purpose
of defrauding her of it; that the scheme
of the instrument of Dec. 10th, 1875
was formed to accomplish the purpose.
that he and Stevens c%onspired to OBJ
tain, and did obtain it from her by de-
fusion; that Stevens was his profession
al hireling in the matter; and that they
have shaped their whole evidence In the
nDGA ~. pAnonn1 anI 30 ,a0kA
their iniquity.
e. w. Mann testified on the defense
hat ut an interview with her in the
summer of 1878 she told him that this
deed had not been delivered to her.
This witness had conducted a suit
to Judgment for the defendant against
M. V. Boughton, based upon an attach
ment of the premises as his, Boughton's
property, having obtained the judg-
ment, caused execution to be levied
upon, and an execution sale made of
the property, AS Boughton and under
his, the witnesses ADVICE, the defendant
purchased the premises at that sale,
and took the deed, which constitutes
ground of his claim to title; and on
the trial of the present issue the wit
ness, also counsel in this case for the
defendant, as such counsel, for the ben
eft of his client, and the information of
the court, explained hat the theory on
which the claim in that suit was at
tempted to be enforced against the
premises as NJ. V. Boughton's property
WAS that the deed had been made to
the wife, leaving the title in himself.
In estimating the evidence of MIR.
Mann, l must see that at the interview,
which is under consideration, he listen
ed to the plaintiff, honestly believing
that the deed had not been delivered to
her, and that the paper of December
10th, 1875, of which he was aware had
been Understandings signed and OBJ
tanned. 1t does not follow from this
that he Inexperienced her; it does
follow that he might have easily misap-
pretended her, and that misapprehen-
sion might reasonably be accounted for
by a very slight difference in language.
| must interpret his testimony by the
attitude that lie occupied in the inter-
view, of which he testified; he states
that he does not recollect all the o n
v~ersation of the interview; and this
circumstance deteriorates from the
force of his evidence. To accept his evil
dence as controlling, 1 must accept it
as controlling what otherwise is a o
tinuous current of fact, flowing the
other way; not as harmonizing what
without it would conflict, but giving
conflict to what otherwise is in harmo-
ny: to accept his evidence then, would
be to violate all established rules for
a~nalyzing contradictory evidence. 1
do not doubt the sincerity of this wit
ness, but | am not satisfied of his accu-
racy.
The plaintiff being then the real
grantee in the deed, and the NJ. ".
Boughton title being by it vested in
her, was her title Invested by the tax
laid upon her property against a stran-
ger, tine tax proceeding being otherwise
regularp Tax proceedings, being In
inuitun, are to be construed strictly;
and whatever is essential to their valid
ity must be afirmatively shown by the
party claiming under them; and, dforti-
orr, if it afirmatively appears that a
requisite has been omitted from the
proceedings, that will vitiate the sale.
So far as the Boughton title was con
cerned, the taxing officers were bound
to know by the record that Mary E.
Bonghton was, and that Martin V.
Boughton was not, the owner of the
premises. In 1876 they were taxed to
him, not to her. In all the proceedings
from assessment to sale, both inclusive,
her name does not, but his does appear,
as the owner, and he is the party taxed;
and no notice was given to her that she
might protect the property from sale by
~ VI