The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-05-15
ADAMS CROOKEDNESS.
HE DUPED AN OLD MAN WHO
WAS VERY FEEBLE.
But the Superior Court would Not
Countenance the Fraud and tho
Gouid's Estate is the
Loser.

Judge Van Dyke Yesterday rendered
his opinion in the case of Ferdinand s.
Gould, executor, against Asa Adams
John Wise and others, ordering judg-
ment and decree of foreclosure OF mort
gage in favor of defendant Wise for the
balance OF the purchase price, and tina!
the same be declared a prior lien to the
mortgage of the plaintiff. A former
Judgment had been rendered in depart
ment three in this case, which was in
favor OF the plaintiff; but it was appealed
by Wise, and the supreme court ordered
q new trial.
The facts in the case were that upon
March q, 1883, John Wise executed q
contract to Asa and Charles G. Adams
whereby no agreed to sell certain prem
Uses for $4,000, $500 to be paid in hand
and the rest on time. There was a pro-
viso that after $500 should have been
paid, Wise was to furnish a certificate
showing good title and execute deed to
the parties OF the second part, and to
take back mortgage on the premises to
secure the deferred payments. The $500
WAS paid down and the contract recorded
on March Z, 1883. On the 18th follow
ing Charles @. Adams transferred his
interest by way of quit claim deed to
Asa Adams, who thereupon applied to
Wise for deed, representing that he
would pay the $1,000, making up the
$500 specified in the contract, and
would execute q mortgage for the de
ferred payments.
Wise, who was at that time 81 years
OF age, feeble and sick, was conveyed by
Adams to the Office of Notary Public
Green in this city. Alter the old man
had acknowledged the deeds and while
the mortgage was being prepared, and
before the payment OF the $1,000, Adams
surreptitiously took the deed from the
table and going to the agent of Julia f.
Gould executed bond and mortgage.
The agent took the deed from Wise to
Adams and the mortgage from Adams to
Julia +. Gould and had them filed for
record on March IL, 1883. Adams then
returned to the notary's Office. executed
the mortgage and paid the $1,000 with
the very money received from Julia
Gould's agent.
Adams during the last trial attempted
to explain his conduct by claiming that
it was in pursuance of an agreement
with Wise, but during the first trial,
although charged by Wise with commit
ting the fraud, he failed to give any tes-
timo on the subject. The court was
OF opinion that his manner of testifying
and the circu instances attending the
transaction of taking the deed, as de.
tailed by Wise aud Green, were entirely
inconsistent with such statements, and
that the fact that he did not open his
mouth in the presence of Wise, the man
he had wronged, at the former trial, but
waited until Wise had become incompe-
tent, should be taken into consideration
and that his testimony was not entitled
to any credence whatever.
The contention made by plaintiff that
Wise subsequently ratified the transse-
ton of Adams and was estopped by his
having received the money advanced on
the note and mortgage made to Julia F.
Gould was not we'll taken, because no
testimony was introduced to show that
he knew anything about the transaction.
The payment by Adams to Wise was in
compliance with the agreement on the
part OF Wise for the sale of the land,
and the execution OF the mortgage back
for the deferred payments was simply to
carry out euch agreement and neces-
ssrily should be simultaneous with the
delivery of the deed 80 as to continue
the security or lien.