Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1902-03-14
WlNDHAM COUNTY COURT.
Decision to Recover $54e in the Bell
VS.. johnson Case from Jackson
willie.

vs. johnson case from jackson
willie.
Eva O. Bell. apt, vs.. Frank b. john
| son estate--Dr. Frank Il. Johnson a
| practicing physician at Jacksonville for
| several years, died at the Brattleburo
| Retreat Dec. 3, 1900. from softcnng of
| the brain, having been committed to the
| Institution about three weeks previously
| lie became incapcitated for business in
| the spring of 1899. and May q of that
| year went to the home of the plaintiff
| in Jacksonville village to be boarded
and cared for. He remained there until
| til his commitment to the Retreat The
| plaintiffs claim. which was disallowed
by the commissioners on DIR. Johnsons
| estate, and brought into this court on
| appeal from their decision. was for S5i9
| and was based on an agreement. written
by plaintiff and purportng to have been
signed by DR.. Johnson, which reads as
| follows:
Jacksonville, Vt. April q. 1899
|, +. +. Johnson do hereby agree to pay
Eva O. Bell one dollar per day. besides
board and expenses. to nurse and attend
| me during my present sickness. so long
| as | remain in her care.
f. b. JOHNSON.
Witness. Sylvia Bell.
The plaintiff. under the law. could not
| testify in her own behalf but her daugh-
| ter. Sylvia Bell, detailed the circum-
| stances of the arrangement between the
parties and the execution of the paper.
| II was shown by several witnesses that
| the doctor received constant and faith
| full care at the hands of plaintiff and as
| his disease progressed the demands for
| constant service became more cNacting.
No payment was made plaintiff till the
| fall of 1899 when DR.. Johnsons brothers
| and only heirs, Charles and Eugene John
son of Brattlcboro. came to visit him.
| An arrangement was then made where
| by Eugene Johnson should take charge
| of the collections and business affairs of
! his brother. the doctor. and settle his
| bills. An arrangement was then made
! with Mrs. Bell which she agreed to re-
| luctantlY as claimed by the defence. in
| accordance with which she was to re-
| ceve 81 per week for the doctors board
| Payment was made on this basis from
| time to time, receipt being taken in
each case showing fun payment to date
! for board and all accounts. These re-
| ceipts We're drawn by the doctors broth
ers with the apparent intention of in
| Guiding all of the plaintiffs demands of
| whatever nature. and all of her claims
We're considered by them to have been
met by the several payments.
| When DIR. johnson became more feeble.
| requiring more constant attention, the
| price of board was increased to 50, at
| Eugene Johnson's suggestion. Eugene
|
weeks at plaintiffs house, assisting in
| the care of their brother in the fall of
| 1899 and following winter but during the
| last half year of his stay at her house
she had nearly the entire care of him.
The defence was to the effect that the
| payments of 50 and 81 per week were UNI
| derstood by all parties at the time to be
| in full payment of all of plaintiff s
| claims of whatever nature, including
| nursing and care and that the receipts
| given by her were broad enough to cut
off all of her claims; also that the sig
| nature to the agreement. purporting to
| be that of DIR. Johnsons, was not gem
| uine.
In support of the latter claim several
of the doctors signatures known to be
genuine We're put into the case to be sub
mitted to the jury in comparison. A.
| A. Butterfield of Jacksonville testified to
his belief that the signature to the
| agreement was made by DR.. johnson.
| The alleged agreement was not presented
to the commissioners. who decided ad-
| Versely to plaintiffs claim on the ground
| that her receipts cut off further claims,
| and II first came to the notice of de-
| PENDANTS attorneys at the commence
ment Of the trial in this court.
Judge Rowen instructed the jury that
receipts were only primia facia evidence
| of the payment of claims and were not
a bar to the collection when non-paY-
ment could be shown; also that should
the alleged agreement be fraudulent that
fact would discredit the plaintiffs claim
| but would not necessarily deprive her of
| what might be her actual due.
| The case went to the jury, without
| argument by counsel, at 2:i5 Saturday
afternoon. and a verdict was returned an
hour later for plaintiff to recover S5i9
with interest from Dec. Q, 1900. c. S.
Chase. Fits and \. \. Butterfeld for
plaintiff Waterman & Martin for de-
| PENDANTS.