The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-01-01
A Big sum INVOLVED.
In the Suit Of John Thompson VS.
Jere. NJ. Mason.
THE FORMER SUES TO RECOVER
VALUABLE BONDS.

| Claimed to Have Been Illegally Retained
by Mason-The Plaintiff Says They
| Were Used as Collatera1-Mason Says
Long standing-Justice Strout Is
Referee.
| In the Supreme court room in this CITY
| is being tried before Justice Strout rs
referee, a case with which the parties
directly and indirectly connected arc
mem bers of several of the leading
| families OF York county, and whose
principals are John Nd. Thompson of
Newfeld as plaintiff and jeremiah M.
Mason of Limerick as defendant. 1t is
On action to recover n s"mIapproximating
S63, 600 alleged to be due Thompson on
account of the illegal retention of bonds,
deposited with Mason by the plaintiff as
collateral security for loan, which 1t is
claimed was fully paid and the return
of the collateral refused. The history of
this case has shaken the very foundations
of the Saco and Osslpee valleys. 1t has
been argued and fought out By the
champions of the principals over many a
winters evening lire and furnished the
theme for large proportion of the ora
lions delivered in the village stores Of
Limerick, Cornish, Newtield and neigh
boring towns for these many years. By
agreement of the parties it now comes
before Judge Strout, as referee, for settle
ment.
The story of the plaintiff and tine con-
tentions upon which the suit is based is
in brief something as follows:
The suit is for the recovery of the value
of $40, 900 worth of bonds and accrued in
terest, involving in all some s63, 600.
Mr.. Thompson claims that as a builder
and contractor he, number of years ago,
Valley railroad. The towns of Buding
ton and Rochester, Wisconsin, issued
negotiable bonds in aid Of the construc-
tion of the road. The road at that time
was not completed. Mr.. Thompson
bought the first ten bonds, issued by each
of these towns. in aid of the road. They
were, each, for $500, bearing per cent
interest, payable in twenty years, and
the date of the issue was November list,
1885,
Mr.. Thompson says that he returned
east and deposited these bonds with the
Alfred bank as collateral for notes given
for loan of $500, giving the bank also
the deed of his homestead in Ncwfeld.
Very soon after this transaction the
Alfred bank collapsed, and by Thomp
sons consent, the loan with securities
were transferred to jeremiah M. Mason,
Thompson being holden to Mason as in
the first plaoo. as he was held to the
bank. Mason held the notes and seouri
ties for some time. Payments were made
IN the notes from time to time and
eventually note for portion of the
loan was cancelled and surrendered by
Mason, and the real estate conveyed back
to Thompson's wife. (The bonds though
deposited by Thompson really belonged
to his wife, h e acting as her. agent until
her deoease in 1876, when he became her
administrator, and is prosecuting this
suit as her administ rator.)
When the $25o0 note was taken up
Thompson wanted to get the bonds again
and an arrangement was made for a note
to be given for the balance that remained
unpaid, sI,256 SO. By agreement, Ira
L. Drew of Alfred, was to sign the note
as surety, and in consideration of that
note being SO endorsed and delivered to
Mason, Mason was to deliver the bonds
back to Thompson. Thompson had some
encouragement from Drew that he wonld
sign that note, but on going to him with
the note for bis signature MIR. Drew de-
clined to sign. Thompson then returned
to Mason and told him be had failed to
procure Mr.. Drew's signature OF the note.
Mason then said to Thompson that it was
no matter about having any endorser, as
the bonds were sufficient security for
the notes, and it would be all right if the
bonds we've left in his hands for col
lateral, but Mason refused to return
them, saying there were other matters
between them to be settled. He said
that he had paid out to attorneys in the
west some $500 for their services in con-
Quoting suit against the towns issuing
the bonds, to establish their value, and
prevented reputation OF them by the
said towns in which they were endeavor-
ing 70 accomplish. The man alleged to
have been paid the $500 was Matthew II.
Carpenter Of Wisconsin, afterwards a
United States Senator. Thompson says
he told Mason to produce the receipt and
that he had the money in his pocket and
would pay him then, and that Mason
made some excuse to the effect that he
could not put his hands on it then. He
further says he made repeated attempts
to get the receipt aud bonds but all
proved futile.
The plaintiffs story of Carpenters con-
nection with the caseais this. He said
that learning of the action of the towns
ta y,Ia