The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1889-01-17

taking charge of things generally
and finally transacting the busiress
procuring ire Old mans s,gnatur
} 10 the paper. 10 Samuel and Monroe
entire satisfaction.
We find that Samuel AMI Monro
were made richer by So, 500 by tn
transaction. and the cd man tina
amour, poorer. So it is not diff
cult to see in whose intcrt ST th
transaction was
, We find Mr.. West coming dow
with these two brothers to Loga
the next day. appearing with then
at tho Bank where this money wa
on deposit, nearly as sm,n as til
Bark opened that morning.
We fnd him clamorous. persist
ant and resolu'e IN his efforts I,
procure cash for the ceriiicaie tia
he had obtained he old nah sigma
ture to.
Finding paymr Mt refused a
that bank, we fin.l Inn seekin.
the aid of his brothers To procure
the cash elsewhere. As resul
OF that effort we find him return
Ing to inform the Spencers the,
could procure lie cash at the
other bank.
When the Peoples Bank and
The Spencers had compromised
he received a thousand dollars
on this certificate to which he
had procured The Signature oil
old man Spencer, for which he
gave no receipt, no note or other
evidence Of indebtedness at the
time. We find HIM conducting g
the Spencers 10 the First Bank 10
negotiate their certificates. and
afterwards driving out with them
in buggy,
In order to close mp The trans
action al the Peoples Bank. lie en-
dorsed this certificate ON the
back. There is a slight conflict
IN She testimony as 10 when this
occurred, but no DISPUTE OF the
fact.
Taking all these facts along
with the inconsistent and nnreaS-
enable explanation of the 81 900
transaction, il cannot be doubted
but that West was acting through
out in the interest OF Me brot tilers.
if indeed. he did not do this
whole thing himself in consider
alton of $1,000, which lie received.
a conclnsion the testimony
strongly points TO. That where
this lawyer laid Down the job
and declined to 90 further will,
it, West took it mp for which he
was 10 receive and did receive
the money.
tits IN nowise important to come
to that conclusion The only qnes
ton VIC are interested IN IS rs to
what part the old man had in this
transaction.
Taking all the testimony bear
ing upon this question into con-
sitieraiion, it seems 10 me, how
ever fair the transaction may be
sought to be made appear how
ever. il may te made 10 assume
the appearance Of an act of graf
itude npon the part Of this old
man toward his two sons for their
kindness and attention toward
him in his declining days, how
ever. the lace of this transaction,
the semblance of a just man
wears, SD kind and gracious. The
Fest is serpent all. and it requires
hut a slightly praciiced eye to
see the Shiny trail OF the serpent |
over this whole transaction.
But a couple OF short Years be |
fore the old man had his solemn
will executed and expressed his de-
sire that all his children should share
and share alike IN his estate. pur |
pose and intention he expressed |
time and again in presence of Sam
uel TO Mr.. Culver and others. There
is nothing shown, 10 sufficient eyi-
dence, fCr so sudden o change ci
purpose.
The claim that he WAS being
abandoned and neglected by his
was not true, and Samuel
and Monroe knew that was u mis-
take aadthey had no ri. httoencour-
age or allow the old man in his hen
to act upon such motives.
The only explanation | can find
for so radical and entire
change of purpose as this was the
turning over of nearly half of his
ready means. is that in the old mans
weakne Of mind and body. with
he opportunity offered by the cir.
and situation ; anoi her.
Will was substituted for his; ano:h
sr's purpose executed for his, and it
s not hard to conclude whose pur-
pose and will 1t was.
/ find therefore, that this assign
ment was procured to be made by
means of undue influence exerled
'ver the old gentleman by Monroe
mi Samuel Spencer. That the
Plaintiff has the right, therefore, to
ecover from them the sum ofS560O
With interest.
| now come to the only other
question that arises in the case, as $
view the law, and that is the ,
'eople's Bunk Liable to respond to
lie executor for the amount Of this
ertiEcate of deposit.
AS before said, that must de-
'end rpon whether that bank, bv c
Is officers and agents. had any q
knowledge of the undue influence,
" which the assignment was DrO 9