Daily Republican., 1886-05-18
SUPERIOR COURT.
THE CASE OF BRADLEY VS.. KENT
STILL ON TRIAL.
A Tedious Examination of Witnesses
Every Inch stubborniy Contested
by Counsel.


e
The Superior Court reconvened at
l3 o'clock yesterday afternoon with all
1.-The Judges present, and Immediately
resumed the trial Of the case Of Caleb
Fl. Bradley VS. Benjamin Kent's ex-
ecutor.
Mr.. Higgins offered In evidence the
will Of Benjamin Kent, executed In
IOctober, 1871, which was read to the
ljury by Mr.. Bates. Mr.. Higgins also
Ioffered the probate, which was object
ed to by Mr.. Nields, on the ground that
Ino bill had been produced, and nothing
shown TO prove that any bill was owed
except the evidence of Mrs White, and
Iit was withdrawn.
| B. Lundy Kent was affirmed, and
testified that he Is son of Benjamin
and Hannah Kent, and q brother OF
Henry 8. Kent, the executor of their
fathers will.
II After the death OF the witness father
there was q conference among the
brothers about the claim Of Caleb ii.
Bradley for the board, and to the best
Iof the witness recollection Henry 8.
Kent was present. The witness had re-
ceived q letter from Mr., Bradley about
Ibis claim, and he asked his brothers TO
r After they had considered the matter
they concluded to pay Caleb FL. Bradley
; and the witness communicated the re-
suit to him. Mr.. Higgins offered this
letter in evidence, but Mr.. Nields OBJ.
jected, as nothing had been produced to
show that the witness was authorized
by the 81 ecutor, or the other brothers, to
send the letter.
The objection was overruled by the
Court, and the letter wEs read to the
jury by Mr.. Higgins. 1t stated that he
had laid the matter, of which Mr..
Bradley spoke in his letter to him,
before his brothers, and that they ~
we'll as himself were surprised to learn
that their father had not paid any
, board while he was at his house, and
. stated that they had resolved 1t must
be paid.
1t also invited him to make out hil
bill, and send 1t TO Henry s. Kent, who
would pay IL out OF the estate. The
letter which Caleb II. Bradley sent tc
the witness, stating his claim, was alse
read to the jury by Mr.. Higgins, and
= ad mitted as evidence. The witness then
resumed his testimony, and stated thai
while his father and mother were with
Caleb III. Bradley, he with his wife and
one child also boarded there for a short
time, and paid ten dollars a week.
He was subjected 70 long and tedi-
GUS CROSS examination, followed by 6
Redirect examination, and was finally
allowed 70 leave the stand at 4.3'
lO'clock.
Mrs. White was recalled and testlfiet
that it WAS only two months previou
TO Mrs. Bradley's death that she re-
iquired the services OF nurse. She OBJ
Ijec'ed TO having nurse and was st
TENDED to by the witness and her father
with the help of Mrs. Kent.
Caleb III. Bradley was affirmed, ant
then asked by Mr.. Higgins how lonl
his wife was i'll previous to her death.
The question was objected to by Mr
Nields, but the objection was over
ruled by the Court and the witnes
then stated that one year and tw
months previous to her death che ha'
undergone n surgical operation u
y Philadelphia. During the illness whic
followed the witness was with her o.
the time, with the exception Of da
or 30 each week when he would G
\ home 10 attend to his business. Pax
of the time that his wife WAS sick b
employed nurse, and his wife
mother was with her more as 0 com
panion than a nurse.
MI The work at home was done by tn
N witness' daughter, except the washing
which he hired some one TO do. Hi
81 wife, after her return home, becam
le | we'll enough TO attend to her work, an
also attended to him for several week
Az while he was sick. After the witnes
20 got better she visited some friends
Il this city. Mr.. Higgins asked, "durin
m the time Hannah b. Kent boarded wi:
you did she do any housework?" an
r upon Mr.. Nields objeoting, 1t WI
withdrawn, and the witness dismissed
,+I Mr.. Higgins stated that they woul
rest their case with this witness, whe
10 Mr.. Nields moved for non suit, on Il
n ground that Benjamin Kent and b
! a wife went to live with Caleb ii. Bra
ley In March, 1877, and left, to come
We this city, in August 1879, and that
ar suit was not entered until October 20
- 1888, the claim vas barred by the act
Limitation. He eontended that even
iy the letter sent by B. Lundy Kent,
Caleb III. Bradley, had been authoriz
by the executor, 1t was not an admi
sion OF any claim on their part. M
Nields continued his argument un
5 As o'clock, when the jury were di
charged until 10 o'clock this moInin
n Andrew K Sanborn, Esq., present
o'i the perition of Lydia Il. Roeerts,ot A
poquinimink Hundred, asking that
Judgment bond, " hioh she had sign
for 81, Jos in favor OF Martha O. III
M nolds, be set aside, on the ground that
q ot was for nearly double the amount q
ella owed Martha G. Reynolds, and that
she is about 40 years Of age and at
time of signing was suffering menta
by reaeon of an affliction from whi
"a. her daughter was suffering and that
~ was not in condition to know wi
T. she was doing; that after wards her 81
q at her request, examined the paper, O
%" found that on the account which she
n confessed Judgment abe had paid $b2e
TO the said Martha @. Reynolds,
is which her attorney Samuel Reyno
.thad not given her any credit.
I.0OOI The petition also stated that II exc
600 ton as issued on this bond 1t woV
Dess ,, deprive her of her farm, and thus Il
4 500 away her only source OF income q
oove support The affidavit Of her SON Y
per Elso presented, setting forth that Mar
lims' u, Reynolds has died since this be
sIas' was executed and that he has mi
nan every effort to have her husband, sa
teen uel Reynolds, rectify the mistake,
urth without avail. Mr.. 5anborn, thereto
asked that o rule be granted for
lCK said Samuel Reynolds TO show ca
oset. why the Judgment should not DC
,ata, opened, and the rule WAS made
turnable on Friday.
,et, At g o'clock Court adjourned unit
- O'Clock this morning.
lastleI -
2Oth Candor of the Mind.
four IT ia wrono IN haliava the frank az