Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1899-03-13
COUNTY COURT.

The March term of Orleans County
Court opened at Newport, Wednes-
| day, March 8th. with Hon. Ell. R.
Start presiding and FL. D. Chamber
lain and A. D. Mathews assistant
| Judges. Prayer was offered by Rev.
Fuller. A large number of jury cases
appear on the docket with few court
cases.
The case of w. G. Elkins VS. A. A.
Mooney commenced Thursday morn
ing. This is an appealed case in which
the action is assumpsit, brought to re-
cover on a certain note made payable
to VIM. G. Elkins and signed Amos A.
Mooney. Plaintiffs evidence tended
to show that some time in June 1881,
he came into possession of certain
notes turned over to him by one L. D.
Adams among which notes was one
signed by Mr.. Mooney, that after hav-
ing had the note for some time and
before it outlawed, he, the plain
tiff, took from the defendant a new
note in substitution for the old one,
which new note is the note in question
and is claimed by the defendant to be
forgery.
Plaintiff said that at tho time he
took the new note he considered de-
fendant Mooney financially irrespon-
sible. Said Mooney was Canadian
customs officer, that his duties were
on the train running west from Man
sonville, and as the plaintiff frequent
ly rode on defendants train he had
on several occasions spoken with de-
fendant concerning this note that on
none of those occasions did the de-
fendant deny the note, but on pre-
senting the note for payment defend
ant denied the signature and pro-
nounced the note forgery. Plaintiff
produced two notes signed Amos A
Mooney given about thirty years ago
to Lawyer Hallron of Cowansville
which defendant said were signed by
him and which notes were offered by
plaintiff as standards of Mr.. MONEYS
signatures.
Mr.. P. j. Farrell was called to give
on the note in suit was the same as
that on the two notes produced as
standards. Mr.. Farrell stated that in
his opinion it was the same. Defend
ant said that ne knew nothing of the
new note in suit until it was present
ed to him for payment, thought he
he did give L. d. Adams his note
many years ago for less amount, but
thought he had paid it, as to that he
could not say pos1tivly. Defendant
produced pay rolls and bonds bearing
his signatures which pay rolls and
bonds were signed A. A. Mooney, said
it was his custom to sign A.A. Mooney
instead of Amos A. Mooney. Defend
ant also produced several witnesses
who testified that they were familiar
with Mr.. MONEYS signature one of
whom said he thought the signature
on the note might be genuine the
others thought it was not.
An issue was raised in the case as to
whether an indosement on the back
of the note by Mr.. Elkins, in which
the defendant is credited with hav
ing sold the plaintiff certain amount
of hay the price of which is indorsed
on the note was fraudulentlY placed
there to prevent the note from out
lawing or whether the plaintiff did in
fact have the hay as claimed by him.
Mr.. MONEYS book was introduced in
which a noinuta of the Gall was antar-
ed and across which was written the
word "paid.' Mr.. Mooney said both
entries were made at the time of the
transaction.
The case was closed at about 2:3O p.
M. Friday. Lawyers Young and An
mis- appeared for the plaintiff and
Lawyers Bates and Miles for the de-
fendant.