Windham County reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1901-1906, 1903-04-24
FROM THE COUNTY COURT.
A RECORD OF THE WEEKS PROCEEDINGS
AT NEWFANE.

Jury Fail to Agree in One Real Estate Case
and Another is Observation-Disclosures for
Defendant in Wilmington Savings Bank
Case-The Enrico Baldwin Case.
S. W. Edgett VS.. f. l.. Burbee,
Admir-, apt. This was an action to re-
cover $3.50 as commission on real es-
tate transaction between defendant and
| Harrison Whitaker of Amherst, Mass.
The evidence was to the effect that w.
II. II. Burbee of Windham, father of
the defendant, short time previous to
his death in November, 1901, placed
his real estate in Windham, consisting
of a saw mill and several pieces of wood
| land, in the hands of Edgett for sale
or exchange. After Mr. Burbee's death
the defendant wrote Edgett that the
property would remain in his hands for
sale and that they would entertain
propositions of exchange for Brattleboro
or Springfield property. Edgett adver-
tised the Burbee property in Massa-
chusetts newspapers and soon received
proposition from Whitaker to take it,
if found satisfactory, in exchange for
three tenement houses that he owned
in Springfield, Mass. Whitaker went
to Windham to look over the Burbee
property and Edgett, Burbee and Whit
aker then went to Springfield to in;
spect the houses of the latter, and
papers were made out at Brattleboro
December 81, 1901, whereby Burbee, as
administrator, was to convey the real
estate in Windham also some 300 acres
of his own in West Dover, in exchange
| h. 80 in
field.
Whitaker was to assume mortgage
of $1,000 on the Windham saw mill prop.
erty, and Burbee was to assume mort
gage Of $500 on the Springfield houses.
Before the papers were passed IL was
discovered that the defendant had no
license from the probate court to sell
the real estate belonging to his father S
estate.
The matter was held open until Ii
cense should be received and 1T was not
until June q, 1902, that all the deeds
we're signed. AT this time complaint
was made by Whitaker that the Wind
ham mortgage had been represented to
him to cover only the saw mill prop
erty, whereas it covered some OF the
timber land also. There was also some
other misunderstanding and pending
| adjustment the deeds were left In Ed
gett's hands to be passed at the proper
time. About August i, Whitaker no
| titled Edgett that he and Burbee had
arranged new deal, and passed the
papers, whereby Burbee had substi-
tuted another woodlot in place of the
Windham sawmill, the other real es-
tate transferred being the same as in
cluded in the first arrangement Whit
aker paid his share of the commission
to Edgett, but Burbee refused to pay.
Edgett testified that the commission
agreed upon was to be $50 in case OF
sale. which fact Burbee did not deny,
but said that the deal finally consum-
mated was different one from that
which Edgett engineered, and which
failed through nofault of the defendant.
The jury took the case about O'CLOCK
Friday afternoon and were discharged at
9 O'Clock Saturday afternoon, not being
able to agree. Fits and Schwenk for
plaintiff, Waterman q Martin and Cud-
worth for defendant.
Henry 4. Adams, Apt. vs. Gilbert
Burroughs. This was an action OF as
sumpsit to recover $50 as commission
on real estate deal arranged by Bur
roughs with Samuel Smith, whereby
Burroughs was to exchange his farm IN
Halifax for house owned in part by
Smith at Athol, Mass. The plaintiff
detailed the arrangement between the
parties to the exchange, submitted a
contract signed by them, making the
claim that the signing of this contract
established his right to the commits
sion. 1t appeared that no actual ex,
change of property had taken place and
Saturday morning the case was discon-
tinued
Wilmington Savings Bank VS..
Charles II. Waste, Apt This was an
action to recover of defendant on
note for $50 to the bank dated June
IS, 1900, signed by Mrs. Clara |. Hall
and her husband, Israel L. Hall, of
Halifax, and purporting to have been
endorsed by Charles II. Waste, the de-
fendant, Jacksonville merchant, who
has had large dealings with the bank
for some years. Hall presented the
note at the bank and received the mon
ey on it without question.
On Dec 10, 1901, Israel Hall was ar
rested for attempting to negotiate a
note at Shelburne Falls, Mass, bank
which was shown to bear forged en-
dorsement. At this time the ofncers
of the Wilmington Savings bank inves--
tigated the paper which Hall had
niaced with them, and found forged
endorsements on several notes, aggre-
eating large amount. The defendant,
Waste, learning that one of Halls
notes to the bank bore his signature,
went to the bank, asked to see the
note. and declared to the bank officials
that he did not sign it, The bank
made no demand of Waste for payment
of the note until year or more after
Halls arrest, when it was placed I'D
the hands of an attorney, and on
Wastes refusal to pay action was be-
gun. The trial began before a jury
Saturday morning. A large number OF
notes, checks and letters bearing
Wastes signatures, admitted to be
genuine, were put into the case for
comparison. W. II. Bracket, c. III.
Pratt and c. A. Harris of Brattleboro,
and f. A. Dewitt of Newfane were put
on the stand by the plaintiff as hand
writing experts, and all testified that
/ in their opinion the signature of Waste
on the note in question was written by
the same hand "a several of Waste S
genuine signatures which were shown
| them. Waste took the stand and de-
MED that he signed the note in ques-
tiop. He stated that for several years
he had almost invariably signed his
name. &c. II. Waste" while the note
in question was signed "Chas. III.
/ ~. >. Savaral thousand checks and