The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-01-01

| CARPENTER brought suit the pl- fnt1f
claims ia the Wisconsin state courts anc
was defeated. 1t was carried to thl
| u nited States Circuit court on an appea
or writ Of erorr, and that court raversedt
decision and decided in favor of Thomp.
sons bonds against the towNs. Congress
man Rurleigh was suddenly killed by
an accident and his wife AS cxecutrix ap-
pearei III the suit. B urlejgh's expendi-
ture wes to be reimbursed for the pro-
ceeas of the suit.
| 1t was this $500 that Mason claimed he
had repaid to Burleigh, Burleigh had
paid to Carpenter and demanded of
Tho mpson.
With many numerous incidental facts
beyond the limits of a newspaper
article matters remained substantially
in this condition between this parties
until the institution of the suit now in
hearing.
1t is said that the gist of the defense is
about as follows:
Mason clai,cs that no note for Sl256
ever was taken by him or existed Mt all,
that no proposition or arrangement be-
tween him and Thompson was ever en-
tered into to return the bonds in payment
of such note. That one-half of the
bonds were transferred or conveyed to
him about the time of the bank collapse,
and the real estate reconveyed to Mr1.
Thomptson, and that subsequently the
remainder was made over to him by Mrs.
Thompson to cancel the balance of the
loan. That the suit brought by Carpen-
ter or his associates was not successful
and that a second suit was brought at
Chicago by Bur.eigh or his ESTATE to
establish the bonds The Burleigh
estates connection is explained in this
way: Tint Mason employed one John
Hall Of Kennebunk to sell the bonds at
SO cents on dollar and that failing in
this he secured an offer of % CENTS on a
dollar from John H. Burleigh which
Mason accepted and that the bonds were
sold to Burleigh forS2o00 and the money
paid. That thu bonds wereGG Mason's
property legally and rightfully turned
over to him in lieu of cash to discharge
n loan made TO Thompson. The defense
also pleads "the statute of limitation and
a general issue.'
In explanation of some of the above
claims the plaintiff will claim that at
one time Thompson's wife went to
Mason and secured Of him collateral
receipt for the bonds held as such. This
receipt (Which Mnson say is a forgery
the plaintiff will introduce. The plaintiff
says he has made repeate but unsuccess-
full attempts to get the bonds or satisfao-
ton from Mason. Once legal action, in
the shnpe of an action of trover was
brought by Thompson VS.. Mason, in
which we'll known Portland attorney
figured, but the case was non-suited and
thrown out Of court as an improper
action to bring in the premises.
The most of the time thus far has been
taken mp by the cross-examination of
Thompson, but it was not finished, as
break was made in it, aid to occupy the
usual time several witnesses were put
on the stand.
Reuben Archibald testified to having
seun Thompson pay money to Mason and
take back in paper from him at the time
when Thompson claims to have COM
pleted the payment of the SIa56. SO note.
Walter Sawyer testified that at . time
later than that at which Mason claims to
have sold and delivered the bonds to
Burleigh he heard Mason offer Thompson
Sl5, 600 for tho bonds at Mason's store in
Limerick.
Stephan Adams testified that at period
later than the alleged date of the sale to
Burleigh, at period when Thompson
says he asked Mason if he had sold the
bonds and that Mason said no, took the
bonds from his safe and showed them
to Thompson, and that be, Adams, saw
Mason take a package of papers re-
sembling bonds, out Of his safe, hand
them to Thompson, who examined them,
and returned them to Mason.
Samuel Bradbury testified that at one
time, at Limerick, be heard Mr.. Mason
say that he realized $4,000 from the
bonds and paid out S11, 900.
John Wentworth of East Wakefield,
testified that in 1878 he went to the depot
to meet his wife, who was coming from
Boston. That when the train came in he
saw Thompson and Mason set off and
talk on the platform. That another man
came out to Thompson making him an
offer for "your bonds.
The NEST interesting case will continue
several several days longer probably.
George 4. Clifford of Cornish and
Hamilton and Cleaves of Biddeford are
fer the plaintiff, and f. M. Higgins of
Limerick and Edward B. Smith of New
York for the defense.
Portland Had Sugar Industry.