The Portland daily press., 1895-09-17
Brothers Of -Four Score, Parties to a
Law Suit.
REUBEN SUES ELISHA IN A CASE
FORTY YEARS OLD.
IT Has Been Tried Twice and Is Now Be
fore the Law Court-A Glance at the
Cow.
ESPECIAL TO THE PREss.1

ESPECIAL TO THE PREss.1
Pennington, September 16.-The courts
of this state probably never dealt with
another case quite like one now pending
before the Law court after two trials in
this county. Dickens might have made
chapter of novel of it. . The suit origi-
mated in the days before the war, and it
was then pigeonholed for nearly forty
years, while the two brothers who are the
parties to it grew to be very old men. 1t
grew out of small matter in itself, and
that seems to have been the effort OF one
brother to help the other. Now, however,
they differ widely as to the transactions
of nearly half a century ago, and SO have
taken their affairs to court, the one as
plaintiff, the other as defendant.
1t was thirty eight years ago when
Elisha G. Jones of Strong, then man in
the primo of life, was sued by store
keeper who sought to recover $50. so for
bill of goods which he alleged that Elisha
had bought at his store. An execution
was issued on Judgment obtained
against the debtor for the amount of the
bill and $s. Do for costs and being unable
to pay, the unfortunate Elisha found him
self in prison. Elisha had a brother who
was forehanded, and this brother came to
the rescue and went on EllSha'S bond,
thus opening the prison doors. Elisha
and his brother Reuben are still living
but they are now very old men, each be-
ing over eighty six. In the years which
have passed since the days when Elisha
h rha cforoIyoanap tha
tion has remained in force against him
but Reuben and Elisha do not agree in
their stories concerning it and they have
both told these stories in court Reuben
claims that when in 1857 he went on
Elisha's poor debtors bond and helped
him adjust his difficulty with the store
keeper, the execution was assigned to
brought suit against his brother to re-
cover the amount due and interest. The
case was first tried in the following year
and then Reuben told the jurors how he
had helped Elisha and had not been paid.
Elisha's counsel claimed that the plain
tiff had not made out a case and moved
that-thes court. SO instruct the jury. This
motion the court entertained and
verdict was accordingly rendered for the
defendant. Whereupon Reuben filed ex-
ceptions and the matter went to the law
court which found In his favor and Or
dered new trial, the decision being as
follows: "It has never in this state been
q defence to an action for debt on a Judg-
ment that the Judgment debtor has been
arrested on an execution issued on the
Judgment and been liberated from arrest
by giving poor debtor bond and dis
closing thereon. There is no illegality in
purchase OF Judgment by one who
was surety of the Judgment debtor on
poor debtors bond given by the latter ION
an execution issued thereon"
So Reuben and Elisha were at the start
ing point again and the case was tried a
second time at the term of court last
February. Reuben again told his story
of the transaction and Elisha told his,
denying that Reuben had any claim
against him and explaining to the jury
that while he recollected that the affair
had been settled he could not after the
lapse of nearly forty years till just how.
Elisha also denied that he had tried to
avoid Reuben when his brother had come
to talk the matter over with him, for
Reuben had told the jury that when
Elisha saw him coming Elisha had run
down steep bank and disappeared, from
which it is evident that the two grey
haired brothers have not been cordial to
one another. The jury struggled with
the case long time and finally returned
a verdict for the defendant and then
Reuben again appealed to the law court
with a motion for new trial. That
motion has not been decided, but should
it be before the term of court to be holden
here this month, the case of the aged
brothers might be again tried and this
time it would come before Chief Justice
Peters by whose father in law the original
execution was issued in 1857. The case
of Jones VS.. Jones also attracts attention
here from the fact that the aged litigants
are represented by two of the brightest
lawyers at the Franklin bar, II. l.. Whit
comb, ESQ.,, represents the plaintiff, and
S. Clifford Belcher, Esq, the defendant.
Reuben lives in Pennington few miles
Strong, and each of them is vigorous,
well preserved cid man. While the
original amount of the execution is not
large, with the interest added, it would
make tidy little sum. 1t is alleged that
in the forty years, the affairs Of the
brothers have changed in condition, and
that it is now Elisha who is forehanded,
while Reuben is poor.
The fall term of court here will
probably last about ten days 1t is not
known just what cases will be tried
Mrs. Lizzie NJ Stowell is under bonds to
appear before the grand jury on a charge
that she aided the prisoners who escaped
from the Pennington Jail last spring.
Mrs Stowell, it will.be remembered, was
VI AdVIlS PthooOeA pio NY w cAIO
jail door through the hole in the wall
used for handing in the prisoners meals
and known as the dread hole" Three
men escaped of whom two were re-
captured. The man who got away is
L AXE, who is accused of stealing horse
and carriage from the keeper of a livery
stable here. Should the grand jury indict
Mrs. Stowell she will be tried at this
term. Mrs Stowell became by her
marriage member of a family long one
of the leading families in this region and
whose hospitable mansion in the olden
days sheltered many distinguished men.
Mrs. Stowell may also figure in another
case although that seems unlikely. She
is the libellant in an action for divorce,
but as her husband is one of her bonds
men it is not believed that she will press
his case.
Mrs. Barker's COW still figures on the
court docket because Mr.. Barker tainted
In fact, it was Mr.. Barkers fainting in
court while he was on the witness stand
which brought the trial to an abrupt
termination at the last term of court
When deputy sheriff attached the COW
he supposed it, belonged to Mr.. Barker,
but Mrs Barker afterwards alleged that
the cow was her property and sued Sheriff
Gilbert Miller for trespass, when he
caused the attachment to be placed on the
COW by his deputy. Mr.. Barker was the