Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1905-06-21
LAW COURT DECISION.
lint in the Case of Hagerthy and
Giles VS.. Weber.

| a-tnf III tut &N~' Vs. sAF1~>N.N"f "'''"@
GILES vs.. Weber.
s.,;s;on Of the law court in the case
= = Hagcrthy and j. I. Giles, OF Ellis
~ Is John p. wehber, Of Brooklinc,
has been handed down. The de-
~. in favor OF the plaintiffs, who UNI
/ Il viii recover s2,7e5.se, the amount Of
/ ,.a,op, rendered at the April term, 1904,
/ ssncock county, with interest at 6 per
:, rom date Of Judgment until it is
y or in round numbers about 5000.
/ " King and John A. Peters were at
80 for plaintiffs and l.. B. Deasy TOR
E,kndsnt. -,
T5e rescript, which Is by Justice White
k,s.e. is as follows;
provided By the statutes relating 70
.s,s Of real estate, that -ths person 10
i ~ ronsy is rendered 70 redesm such Lands.
/ ...sses A larger sum than he Il entitled to
/ 4. sball refund the excess.
ass.pians received from the plaintiffs the
a a, .aAas 20 redeem from mortgage the
/ testlan 10 this case. but the jury owl
-, t,aud that TIC tisfcnda, was NOT entitled
4 -. any part OF that sum. and accordingly
.a.,.a A verdict for the plaintiH for the en-
.aount. rho ease comes to this court on
| ,s,,p and EXCEPTIONS.
- mn siding justice instructed the jury that
|, -. werc 1000 cords Of bark upon this
80 land during the period OF afteen years.
practicable for the Shaws TO have
~ or the snaws or their successors 10
- TAKEN OF within the period OF iiseen years
1, IA MAY l, lsgT, that then that would be the
4. AZ this cssc. and nothing would be due
H. ,he mortgage, ssd the plaintiffs would be
Lsfsea 10 recover.
M. Instruction was undoubtedly correct
!, ,,valv sastaiaed and eaforced the agreement
n - u.r,,ss according TO the manifest iaten-
y. AZ disclosed by the terms OF toe MORTGAGE.
J, ~ hemlstk trees from tho shaws to the
I'M. The ,eru.s of the si.eco mortgage of ioe
H. from the Halls 10 the shaws. and the unre
[,,de, agreement shsrein referred 10 and
[sx,,bsd. The defendant frxnkiy admits that
n ,ss tine he made the purchase. be understood
~ IL 1909 corts Of bark could have been
|a,sn Of Of the land during the period Of az.
|seu Years provided In the agreement, ''that
A. Eould have ended the MORTGAGE" ard IL il
|,,aen, that Mr. Casmenf. the PLAINTIFF wit
|,sss, did not intend 70 sive any differeat view
|ah
RsppsArs from the testimony Of both Clement
Id .ae ecfenssant that thu agreement examined
Ia discussed by them was plain and easily
,sassssood, and ,hsir promps concurrence rs TO
H. substance and effect OF It's terms 10 more
nisiscsory evidence OF the contents OF the lost
,sper than any inadverssnt forms of ex-
srrssson employed by counsel In preparing tho
sisrrosaiories for clemert's deposition. IL is
tina, The defendant, Weber, would
saYe been 70 readily conviaeed Of the effect of
be sgreemen, II II had spoken upon this poins
sah any uncertain sound
With respect 10 the motion IL IL earnestly con-
|knded in the first place that the verdict IL not
sarraniea by The evidence for the reason that
b. money received By the defendant. which the
El1is,ifs seek to recover In this action. ia
kitAfly shown by the rvisienec to have been
kaa by the plaintiffs for the purpose of com
krsmisiug and Hnaliy settliuE a disputed mort
Eags debt. and TINT the defendant Ia therefore
|autiei TO retain all that he received, although
aish, subsequently appear 10 be more than
sss actually due.
But 1t is a significant fact that instead of re-
tiisins the sum Of SAYS IS. by cheek. as he was
sgihorized to do by Ihe defeadapt's letter. the
9lalhiir Giles wentto Bangor with bis attorney,
Mr. kirg. and paid the defendant the fun sum
oi s2.7ss 50 IN bank bills which he carried from
Ellsworth 10 sstchel for that purpose. Tn .
proceeding was entirely irrecon.
eAeie with the defendants theory that the par
fss had previously agreed upon debate sum
Y b accepted By thu defendant a. final settle
peat by way Of compromise. There was also
Festive testimony from MIR. Giles that at the
nne Of the delivery Of those bank bills to the
fsleadants agent. Charles r. Weber, By Mr..
Alag. the plaintiffs attorney. that according TO
sheif claim there was pothing due under the
na'issse. that the money was paid under pro
s'i and that an action woull be commenced to
recover Il.
CT Weber and his stenographer. I, lie true.
f'slfed tha, no such statements were made by
MI AinE, boz the jury saw the Witnesses and
considered their testimony In coBnee-
Aaa VITA the improbability that Mr.. King
s0ad thus deliberately parti ipste 10 such a
'l9pfomise adjustment aud Immediately there
l''ef fepgdiaie the settlement and commence ar
'o'loh to recover the money. But no useful
purpose can be subserved by reviewing In de-
Nj 'ne iorty'four psges of testimony relating
y '0's branch Of the case. IL IL only necessary
V say that there was Sufficient evidence TO war
'aa' 'he hndiDg OF the jury. and that the court
qua BOT be lastiaed In disturbing the verdict
" tals ground.
ise scale books of William Watts, u deceased
,1f'eyor' were undoubtedly admissible evil
:. fike y Crehore 40 Me. 5cs; Green Ev.
y 20 sects. IFS and lie. swigmore on ET.
vets lssi,l53o.
~ 'oe light Of all the testimony these books
'rfeAs 70 have been competent evidence for the
- 'enon Of the jury "a tending to prove
= 4eAo'i'y Of harG taken OF OF the tract in
, $50. This was the important purpose for
~ 'ne books were kept. and the entries In
~. are original evidence and the best evil
Stated. ~
A. = accordingly the opinion OF the court that
49, must be. Motion and exception over
-------