The Press., 1889-01-17
A FAMOUS BARN-BURNlNG CASE,

Another decision was given on Monday (7th) i'll the celebrated barn burning Case of Alexander Mead against David s. Hust- ed, which has occupied the courts of Con- necticut for the last ten years. The de, cision was in MT. Mead's favor. He h.. d four burns burned, aud then he quit build ing them, not only because it was almosta certainty that any new structure would meet the fate of it's predecessors, but be- cause his series of misfortunes had become famous in insurance circles, and he found 1t impossible to obtain fire insurance on anything he possessed.
 Mir. Meals first barn was burned ill 1875. It was large structure, situated on his place in Greenwich, Conn., and was filled with hay and grain. While the barn was on fire young lady of the neighbor- hood saw Dlvld $. Husted standing in a building, watching the fire. That same year, but prior to the burning of Mead's barn, HuSted had been arrested by the Glens Falls Insurance Company for ob taining money under false pretenses. He had built new house, which was burned almost as soon as it Was iusnrt in the Glens Falls Company. The latter had Husted confined i'll the Glens Falls jail un- til he paid back all the money received from the Insurance company. When Hust. ed was released from prlson 1t was reported to Mead that Husted blamed Mead for tue acton of the lnsurance company and had sworn vengeance. To this Mead paid so little attention that he built another barn il 1876, and stored it with all kinds of crops. In March, 1877, this barn was likewise destroyed by fire Mead had his suspicious, but he was still in need of a barn, and therefore proce d Il to cree. an other structure on the site of the old one Tn January, 1879, this baru was burned, with twenty-seven heid of cattle and a large amount of grain, farming imple- ments, etc.
 Mead then determined to do something for his own protection, and, acting under the advice of George H. Watrous of New Haven, he began a suit for $2O,OOO dam- ages against Husted, and attached the lat ter's farm for that amount. The Case was brought to trial in 1880, but the evidence bearing on the burning of the barn in 1875 was ruled out under the statute of limita- tlon. Mead appealed from this d. cision to the supreme court of errors, aud new trial was granted with the admission of the 1875 evidence: The second trial was held before jury in Bridgeport in 1883, and it was testified that Husted had openly threatened to burn down Mead's barns un. til Mead should suffer loss equal in amount to the sum of money that Husted had been compelled to pay back to the Glens Falls Insurance Company. The jury disagreed, but the case was brought to fresh trial at Danbury, in the fall oi the same year. On that trial Mead ob. tained 8 judgment of 5000 and costs against Husted. The latter appealed to the supreme court for new trial, but the appeal was denied Then Mead attached Husted's farm, and recovered $6, 900 as the total of the judgment.
 In the meantime Mead had built a fourth barn, despite the fact that he could obtain no insurance on the building, and this was also burned in 1884, The town of Greenwich then became thoroughly