The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-06-01
was willed to his wife as my former land"
and formerly owned by me-"
- Me- l.. 1

| my lOIIlleF luIlu.
! There, aid the rich people, doesn't that
! show that Ezekiel and his wife had sold the
land to somebody! And isn't it fair to pre-
sumo that that somebody was Jerry Rich
| aldson, and we can show our claim to the
land clear back to Jerry!
Having driven this nail, they proceeded
to clinch it. They showed that Ezekiel ran
away Just after he sold That land. and left
! his wife to go on the town. Then they
brought out the old town records and
showed that in the latter part of 1851 the
| town authorities were instructed to see if
| There was not some land somewhere be
longing to the family of the said Ezekiel,n
so that it could be sold to help pay the ex-
pense of keeping Mrs. Ezekiel. They found
one tile six-acre lot and sold it, but it
wasn't any part Of the lot her father had
| wllled her.
There, said the defense triumphantly, do
you suppose that if Ezekiel and his vito
still owned the big lot the town wouldn't
have known it! All the town could find
was this little six-acre lot: and it certainly
was for its interest to find and sell all there
was. Take this fact and that expression,
my former land," together, and what Let
ter proof do you want to show that the
land had been sold, and if so, you can't
claim it now And we can, for we have
been taxed for it ever since ITO
This was staggerer for the poor Fullers.
They rallied, though "What ii Ezekiel
Fuller did call it his former land n said they;
lit wasn't really his to begin with. 1t be-
lorged to his wife, because her father left it
to her. Her husband couldn't sell it for
good without her consent All he could
sell and all ne did sell probably was his life
interest in it. Tue deed doesn't say land
formerly belonging to ne
AND MY WIFE.
nd Io,,or nc II 1Ca1 so,, tI,ot 1-o,, borvo
no ground for supposing that she ever
signed a decd with him. And if she didn't,
then our title is good
Then the defense lefb this point and went
on to show their title to the land all the way
down to 1880. They put in a deed of the
22I acres made i'll l ,7GS In this deed one
Jerry Richardson sold the land to Stephen
Jen4s They couldn't show where Jerry
himself got his deed, but presumed of
course that he got it from Ezekiel Fuller
and his wife. From Stephen jerks down to
the wealthy defendants it was plain sailing,
for the land had been kept in the jerks
| family all the time, and the principal defend
ants were his direct descendants They had
never fenced the ledge lot in, and they
thought very likely that vagabonds had
gone there now and then and stolen wood
But they had worked the ledge, dug out
stone, and sold it to the Boston and Provi-
| dence railroad to build cuIverts with, and
| the noise of the blasting could be heard
clear down to the old Barrows place. Yet
the Fuller boys never came up and told
them to stop, or notified them that the land
| was theirs
They. too, brought old residents with ear
| trumpets, who swore they never heard the
land called tho Fuller land They had
| heard of the Fullers, though, and declared
that they stole wood all around not only
| from the lot it seems they claimed, but
| from nelghhoring lots as well.
Then the lawyers did their talking and
| the case was closed.
Judge LeBaron B. Colt charged the
| twelve good men and true. He explained
in regard to the deed in which Ezekiel Full
Ter spoke of my former land" He said
that the claim OF the defendants that that
| expression warranted the presumption that
| Mrs Ezekiel Fuller and her husband must
| have decided the land to somebody, could
| not be allowed He said:
"Now gentlemen you would not be war
! ranted from the fact that Ezekiel Fuller
states in the deed tine deed in which he spoke
of my former land that the land he is
deciding borders upon land formerly owned
by him, in concluding that Abigail Fuller,
Mrs Ezekial Fuller, whose name is not
mentioned, made a deed of this property to
some one-Jeremiah Richardson or some
body else" Then ne took up the matter of
THE BRUsHwooD CLAIM
of entering into possession between 1882 and
1872 He said:
well, now, what is entering into posses
siona Why, it means, gentlemen, an entry
on to the land with the intent of claiming
it, or an entry on to the land claiming the
right to be there, under the claim Of right
or ownership. If you believe that one Of
these heirs made ain entry on to these
premises under the claim of ownership, as
the plaintiffs maintain. then that would in
terrupt the running of the statute. But if
you find they merely went upon the land
occasionally, secretly, with no intent to
vest the ownership of the land i'll them,
under no claim of title thereto, then it
would not be legal entry. That, gontle-
men, is a question of fact for you to decile.n
The trial had now lasted three weeks and
at last it was in the hands of the jury.
The twelve good men and true, brought in
their verdict.
1--WE first took a VOTE" said the foreman,
''to see if the title remained with Abigail
Fuller down to 1882, and we agreed that it
had. Then we took a vote to see if posses
sion had been broken between 1882 and 1852,
and since, and we agreed that it had. We
find for the plaintiffs"
Hurrah! What a shout went up from
the Fulers! They had their rights at
last, and the land was theirs. Money,
money, enough for all.
Not yet People don't give up 500, 700
without murInur, just because twelve
men say they must The rich owners asked
for new trial. They got it. The whole
case was tried over again, and again the
| Fullers were victorious. -.t
Then the rich defendants carried the case
| to the Supreme Court of the United States
at Was iingt n. They argued that the
Judges ruling against presuming that the
| missing deed was a warranty deed wa' not
good law. The venerable law interpreters
at Washington agreed with them, and so
back to Rhode Island came the defendants,
and last September the case was tried again.
This time, for variety, the jury disagreed.
And now the case has just been tried still
once more, and this time the verdict was for
the wealthy defendants.
In all there have been five verdicts-two
for the claimants, two for the defendants,
and one disagreement. The Fullers are
somewhat discouraged at the outlook now,
and have not yet decided TO try it again.
But the peculiar nature Of the evidence,
the persistency with which both sides have
fought and the variety of decisions, all
make the case one of the most notable in
the history of Jurisprudence in Rhode
Island.
Diamonds and Jewelry.
r,u many n germ