Gilpin observer., 1904-06-23
ROZENE MEEKER}
WINS Her CASE AT GREELEY
Jury Finds that She Is Entitled to the
Property Conveyed 70 Her
4 by Her Mother.

paCcn says: Inc Meeker case is end.
ed. The jury brought In verdict last
night in favor Of the defendant in the
case of Arvilla D. Meeker and Ralph
Meeker against the daughter and sis
ter Rozene. The plaintiff, sought to
recover deeds to the valuable Meeker
estate which they alleged were OBJ
tanned by fraud from the aged mother
by her daughter Rozene. The trial has
attracted attention not only locally
and in this state, but also in the East,
where the history of the founding of
Union colony and the settlement of the
town of Greeley by N. G. Meeker and
the story of the massacre of Father"
Meeker by the Indians at White River.
the captivity of Mother" Meeker for
twenty days, is well known. The ver-
dict was special one. 1t was given
in answer to three questions PROFOUND
ed by Judge Bennett to the jurors and
on which the counsel based their final
pleadings.
Ovid Plum acted as foreman of the
jury and to the questions, brought in
the verdict as follows:
ITO the first question. we, the jurors,
answer Yes; to the second question.
No; to the third question, 'Yes''
The first question was: Were the
NSSNo SASSoeOu W ehO PioAhtlAs 1lNlllh
D. Meeker, on January 14,19O4, execut-
ed by her pursuant to an agreement or
understanding had prior thereto with
the defendant, Rozene Meeker, that
such deeds should be executed before
the plaintiff died? (Answer, yes.)
Question No. 2-Did the defendant,
ROzene Meeker, exercise any coercion,
fraud or undue influence upon her
mother to procure the execution of the
deed made January IA, 1904? (Answer
No.)
Question 3-Was the plaintiff, Aryil-
la d. Meeker, at the time of the exc
cution of this deed on January IA, 1904,
in such mental condition that she full
ly understood that she was conveying
away her property and assented there
to? (Answer, Yes.)
The arguments of the case were lis
tened to with much interest. Joseph
Swing, counsel for the plaintiff, laid
great stress on Rozene's ill treatment
of her mother as brought out by the
witnesses for the plaintiff and in the
testimony of Mother" Meeker. He re-
ferred to the statement of Mother"
Meeker in which she said she never
intended Rozene should have all the
property. He called attention to Mrs.
Meeker's weak physical condition when
she signed away the property, which
transfers she has now no recollection
of making. He referred to Rozene's
promise. which he alleges was made
in the following terms. and If her
mother should ask at any time for the
return of the property she would recon-
vey it to her.
Charles Tew. counsel for the defense,
argued that Rozene's treatment to her
mother had always been kind and con-
siderate, as shown by witnesses. all of
whom were reputable citizens. He told
of the heavy manual work which the
defendant had done for twenty years
to support her mother, referred to
Ralph Meeker as the prodigal son who
not only wanted the fatted calf but the
whole herd. He said the brother new
er found cause of complaint of the
daughters treatment of her mother in
the last twenty years. until after the
property had been transferred. The
counsel spoke Of ]. M. Freeman, a well
known Greeley attorney who has act
ed as adviser in the Meeker family for
twenty-five years. Mr.. Freeman ex-
planned and showed Mrs. Meeker the
deeds before she signed them to Ro-
zene, which she said she wanted to do.