Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1885-12-04
A COMPLICATED CASE.
Trial of Wilson vs.. Moen in the United
States District Court in Boston.

case Of Wilson VS.. Moen was reached in this
United States court at ii O'Clock, before Judge
Nelson and special jury. The suit i,
brought for Sl5O.OOO BY Levi Wilson o,
Providence. against Philip L. Moen, Presi
dent of the Washburn and Moen Manufac.
turing Company of Worcester. The case ha.
attracted considerable attention and there wa.
strong array of legal representatives when
the case was called. The declaration states
that three actions had begun in 1882 against
the plaintiff Wilson, one by Hattie L Weth.
erell Of Worcester county, for breach OF
promise of marriage to recover $50, 900, one
by David B. Eugley of Providence to recove,
$50, 900 for the seduction of his daughter, ant
one bv Hattie A. Eugley, the daughter, to
recover $4,000 for breach of promise Of
marriage. Against all these actions the
plaintiff AYERS he had perfect and lawful
defense.
Notwithstanding this the defendant in the
present suit. MIR. Moen, decided not to defent
these actions but to compromise and settle
them, and the plaintiff agreed to do 80 on
consideration of 500, 900 paid TO him and the
payment of his expenses in compromising
with the victims. The plaintiff paid Out
SIG, 900 to settle these cases, but the defend
ant Moen has never paid him the 500 900 he
promised, or even the $4,000. The only
payment made has been 500, 900 which was
paid al a settlement had in Worcester
August 9TH, 1882. At this settlement it ap
peared that Moen still owed Wilson 500 900
which he had refused to pay.
The defendants reply was a general denial
OF liability, and said that if notes were ever
given they were without consideration and
were never expected to be paid
Mr.. Geo. j. West of the counsel for the
plaintiff then proceeded to open the case
The name OF Moen appeared in the news
papers connected with that of Wilson and the
latter gentleman sought to induce the witness
to compromise the cases in order to avoid
further publicity. In a conversation which
took place at Moosehead Lake, the witnesses
alleged that Moen urged him to settle with
the plaintiffs in these cases, but the witness
replied he had no money and was unable to
do so.
Moen, according to Wilson's story, then
offered him 100000 and what he might ex-
pend in the settlement if he would secure a
compromise. Wilson says he closed the bar
gain on that basis and soon after he received
500, 900 from Moen. His suit is to recover
the balance which, Wilson says, he never re-
ceived. The cross examination was still in
progress when a recess was taken.
After the recess the witness continued
Nobody ever said anything at the interviews
about the payment of $l00,000; neither was
anything said about paying the witnesses and
lawyers $l6. 200. A letter was shown the
witness, who did not recognize the signature.
1t was dated April 2, 1888, and was sent to
Mr.. Rice, saying he had thought the matter
over. Rice was told to advise Moen to do as
he had agreed to in the matter. He had bor-
rowed $4,000 and if Moen would advance
the amount he would sign the receipt in full
for all demands of every name and nature
otherwise, he would"do as told you today"
Witness denied writing the letter or getting
any answer to the missive. Wilson never
received an offer of $4,000 from Rice; he
had received threat from Mr.. Geo. Hobbs
that if he pursued the matter further he
would be put behind the bars; Moen had
things all his own way, the witness retorted
that if he went behind the bars Moen would
have to go to. The witness denied having an
interview with the Eugeys a week ago Wed
nesday night. Another letter was brought
forth, the signature of which the witness did
not recognize. 1t was dated Providence, in
December, 1888, and directed to Rice, asking
if he could see the addressed and Mr.. Moen
at Rce's Office on the following Thursday.
Witness never had published anything in
the newspapers. He had told reporter last
spring he could never get Moen to talk ''this
business" over in Rice's presence. He had
always talked of his claim of 500, 900 on
Moen, though not to Rice until recently. In
answer to the question by his own counsel
witness explained that the reason he was re-
luctant to settle the Moen suits was because
he would be ruined in his hotel and mill
business, and he had good defence.
Arthur A. Putnam, Judge of the Uxbridge
District Court, counsel in 1882 for Miss
Wetherell, was called to identify a telegram
from Wilson to his client, and testified to
seeing check for 500, 900 received by Wilson
on the 10th of August, 1882; the case was
settled the day after. He paid $500 in
money.
Frank W. Barnes of Uxbridge, jeweler,
was acquainted with the plaintiff IN August,
1882, and recollected a telegram and check
received by Wilson. The telegram was
signed "Moen' and read substantially that
he had sent $40, 900 and that he would send
$40, 900 and again $4,000. He also saw the
letter containing the check and was familiar
with the writing. 1t was signed p L. Moen.
He read the letters for Wilson, who at the
time was illiterste. Adjourned till tomorrow
During the noon recess Wilson's overcoat
spirited away, it having been left with his
brother-in-law, who left the court room fol-
a while, during which time the coat dis
appeared. The coat contained, Wilson
claims, number of papers of material value
to him in the prosecution of the present suit