The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1889-01-17
THURSDAY. Jan. II, 1889.
THE SPENCER CASE.
A Staten cni of the Facts.
JUDGE FRIESNER'S VERDICT.

----(ol-
The pleadings in this case bein:
somewhat volumnious, and in ordeI
tn make the reasons for the crnclu
sions reached at all plain, it il
necessary should comment at som'
length upon the testimony; to sav,
space, I shall but briefly state tht
nature of the case, made by the
pleadings, setting forth more par
ticularly the issues between ths
parties, as proceed t. The decision
The action is brought by the
Executor of Jesse Spencer, who
brings srit to recover for the estate
$500. with its interest, from
Samuel and Monroe Spencer, whom
he says wrongfully obtained the
certificate of deposit from their
father Jesse, in his life time, and
the. money expended thereby, from
she Peoples Bank of Logan. where
the same wss on deposit; and
against the Peoples Bank for
wrongfully paying or taking up
such certificate, ano, against the
FIRST Bank of Logan, wherein it Is
charged. the fund represented by
that certificate in contemplation Of
Law is.
The ground for the acton is that
it is alleged first, that when Jesse
Spencer's signature WIS procured
to such certificate, he was lunatic.
whosiy without reason, incapable OF
doing any valid act; and second,
rhatif he were not wholly incapable
he was of weak and snfeebled mind
at The time, taking advantage of
which Monroe and Samuel procured
his sign'ture thereto, by fraud. i'm
position and undue influence,
knowledge of which is charged upon
the Bank.
The rights of the several parties
here depend upon a few leading
questions of fact that arise in the
case, and the law applicable there
to.
1t is apparent that the first I'M
portant question is the mental con-
siition of Jesse Spencer the morning
of the 1lth day of April last, the
time Said certificate is said to have
been assigned.
If the old man Spencer at that
time was of sound mind and memory.
}aboring under no legal. disability,
the victim of no unlawful restraint.
or fraud. or Of no undue
influence practiced upon him, that
is an end to this case.
For NJ matter how improvfdent
the act may appear to have been,
how injuiiclous or unwise, if he
vas in the condition spoken of, it
was his property and he nigh: do
as he should think best or as lie
plcasel with his money. and the
act itself be complete and suif1
cient reason for it.
Nor will mere weakness of mind
a,onc be sufficient. The law does
not presume to deprive a man Of
the right and dominion of his own
property, for mere weakness OF
intellect alone; nothing could be
n ,re cruel or unjust.
The right of free disposition is
10 of The slost satisfactory and
rights connected with the
ownership of property.
What greater satisfaction can a
nan have from his property than
0 be enabled to dispose of it as he
hall see fl; to exercise his OWE
dgmeut and discretion; to reward
he deserving, TO Withhold from the |
Ingrateful. t
It frequently happens that the {
'lght over his property is the only j
protection an old and enfeebled man
las. This property under such cir G
umstances is within his own con
%. II is the stay of his failing (
ealth, the prop of his declining 4
ays. f
The knnwledge that he may he 4
Isinherited has caused many a dis d
be,l:ent and ihankless child to {,
assume virtue, such fi'ial service Fl
nd duty, giving care. attention c
nd protection, that would be e
herwise neglected.
Courts can 10! be too careful there. s
re in interfering with a mans c.
g!,t to the free disposition of what h
has Accumulated or is possessed W
So long as tho individual has II
lgment and discretion that is 3
seiy used, he must be permitted W
c use OF it. C,
Juries sometimes, and courts per-
ps, f.rget that they arc not called III
,on nor permitted 10 make wills. la