The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1885-02-25
THE BROWN ESTATE.
MIR. Rand Concludes His Argument
Closing Arguments for Plaintiffs by MIR.
Putnam

Putnam.
In the case OF Philip Fl. Brown ct al. VS..
John Rand ct ais, on trial in the Supreme
Court lin chancery) before Judge HASKELL
Mr.. Rand yesterday continued his argument
in defense which discussed in detail the allie
cations of the bill and the evidence in the
case. he claimed that the exclusive posses
sion by him Of certain funds and property of
the estate, and depositing the same in his own
name as trustee was consistent with law and
in no violation of his duty as trustee and in no
respect deti mental to the estate or its in
terests; that he was not required by law or by
the interests OF the estate to deposit the money
that came into his hands TO the credit of the
three trustees and that his refusal to do so
was no breach of trust and had not injured
the estate because his refusal to sign these
checks did not prevent him from paying
large amount of claims against the
estate which we're presented to him and which
he would have continued to pay had not the
court required the funds in his hands to be de-
posted to the Joint credit. He claimed that
the cutting off Of the coupons was simply an
exercise OF the right of possession which he
had as one of the trustees, and that such eut-
ting was by no means detrimental to the
estate; that the removal of Mr.. Douglass, or
rather the withdrawal of his authority to act
for the respondent, was within the legal
powers OF Mr.. Rand; that he had right to
collect personally whatever rents he saw ft
that in his intercourse with these plaintiffs
and with persons having business with the
estate he has not been insulting, overbearing
or capricious; and that the remarks addressed
to people In the employ of the trustees are not
matters for consideration upon such a question
as is presented by this bill.
he explained at some length the mistake OF
$o1 UOU In the accounts and claimed that it
was made through the mistake of the plaintiffs
and their bookkeeper in making out the profit
and loss account of j. B. Brown & Sons. That
as to the error of $4,000 in the probate sc-
counts OF 1883 that was a mistake of the re-
spondents IN Supposing that two notes of $751;
600 which were within the vault in respond
ent's office were included In the previous pre-
bate account. The estate lost nothing and
the estate gained nothing, nor was the estate
affected in the slightest degree and as soon as
the error was discovered it was corrected.
He claimed that there was ne evidence in
the case worthy OF moments consideration
OF any want OF reasonable harmony among the
trustees for three whole years; that the affairs
of the estate were well administered and that
they all agreed and co-opersted in the admin
istration OF the estate in all its material in
terests except perhaps the Brown block and
in that the plaintiffs bad their own Way.
Mr. Rand closed at 4 O'Clock, having occu-
pied ten hours.
Mr. Putnam began the closing argument for
the plaintiffs at 4.30 o'clock and continued I'M
til adjournment at O'Clock.
He said the case was an exceedingly un-
pleasant one. In the whole course of his pro-
fessional career he never had been engaged in
any duty which he approached with graver
spirit, with greater reluctance to do his duty
than he did in this case. The record will
show how counsel for plaintiffs hung back,
how they delayed, how they sought means and
opportunities TO postpone it or get rid of the
necessity for the proceeding, and how they
failed. But counsel have duties the court has
duties, and no matter who stands in the way.
no matter how high the parsonage stands in
the community, the court and counsel must do
their duty. And the greater the experiences,
the higher the standing of the person who is
charged with breach of his trust, the more
stringent should be the rules to which he
should be held to account.
Mr.. Putnam claimed that the record of the
testimony, particularly the answer of the re-
spondent when compared with his cross-exami-
nation, will show that wherever there is con-
fct CT testimony between the plaintiffs and
Mr.. Rand, the testimony of the plaintiffs
should be taken. He did not charge Mr.. Rand
with deliberately stating what he knew to be
false, bat he is a man beyond the age of three
score years and ten, and his failure of memory
when taken with the peouliarities of his tenn
permanent will undoubtedly account for many
of bis statements, which in another person
could not perhaps be accounted for, except on
the ground OF wilful msstatement.