Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-08-10

interruptions Of his nephew That is all
the conversation"
Other witnesses, associates of Mr.
Bradbury in business, were called to tes-
tlfy in relation to the frequency Of the
the visits of the nephew to his uncle at
Augusta. MIR. John w. Chase, who had
been for many years either the president
or director of an Augusta bank in
which Mr.. Bradbury was also director
and where the latter, having no Office in
the town, spent portion of nearly every
day when in town, testified often Mr.
Bradbury used to come there with James
Otis take him into the directors room.
sit q little while, then So to ride" Later
in his testimony he says, II have seen
them go into the directors room very
often" And that Mr. Bradbury had very
often said to the witness that he had
sent for James Otis to come down and
see him. Mr. Trnby johnson, cashier of
the sane hank testified ITO substantially
the same thing. Lendall Titcomb. Esq.
a lawyer of Augusta, who was associated
with Mr.. Bradbury in certain trusts, tes-
titled: Il should say that he came once
every few months, probably three times
a year, l should think. / have no date to
fix that by, only a general impression
that i have at this time"
A number of letters were put into the
case by both sides between uncle and
nrwhew, all of which show that a great
affection existed between them, and
some letters written by the uncle to
the wife Of the nephew during n period
of time when the latter was sick. In one
of these Mr.. Bradbury said: Il beg YOU
to inform ne just how lie is. tReferring
to the appellant. He is almost as inn
portant TO me as to his own dear family"
In another letter to the wife written ut
about the same time, both letters being
dated in October 1855, Er. Bradbury
cautions her that his nephew must b.
exceedingly careful and run no risks. and
says I'VE All need him" In Il letter
from the nephew to his uncle, the formt +
writes: You have always been more like
q father TO me than otherwise and as
sure you | appreciate your kind:.USs and
affection. ana hope that ] may De able
to make easier tie care and duties of life
to you" The appellant also offered four
checks for small amounts. in PAYNE mt
cf current bills, Grawn by the appellant
Ia the name Of his uncle. and all signed:
James W Brdbury by James .. Ertd
bury authorized. And all dated on Jan
uary ith two days before Mr. Bradbury 5
death.
The evidence IN defense consisted Of
the testimony If two servants vino were
il the family Of Mr.. bradbury Tor some
years pr1or to his death. and whose tes-
timnny as to the frequency of tn" appel
lants visits to his uncle did not differ
much from that already referred 70.
These witnesses testified that prior 10 the
sickness of the uncle in September lNE'.
about a year and four months before MS
death the nephew was accustomed 10
come TO Augusta to see his uncle about
once in three months, and that during
his neriod Of the uncle'S sickness tn"
opncllant cane to see him about once in
two weeks. Gilman the man servant, in
response to an inquiry as to what he had
seen the appellant doing while IN Nr.
Bradburys loom said: He wasn't doing
ANYTHING. Sometimes l have seen him
have q column of figures and ask him
(the ncle) if they were right or some
thing like that" There was also the
testimony Of an Augusta lawyer To the
effect that upon two or three occasions
he had rendered professional services
| to Mr. Bradbury. 1t further appeared
that the will of Mr.. bradbury, and Vari-
| Gus accounts filed in the Probate Court
by the latter, either for himself or for
his daughter-in-law as eXecutriX of the
will of Henry n. were in the handWrit
| ing of Mr. bradbury.
Rut the defense relies principally upon
what is claimed to be the inherent I'M
probability Of the appellants CLAIM ana
POSITION in relation thereto; an lmproD-
| ability which, is said to be SO great rs
| to render the evidence i'll support 81 thiS
| claim Incredible That the position al
the appellant that Mr.. Bradbury ut the
| age of about eiShty-nine years, %heh
this contract is claimed t" have p"rt
| made having no intricate business ~
| other affairs requiring professional mr.
| sistancc Of much consequence. win an
| cHpectation of life Of such very limtco
| duration, should entCr into Il contract
| With aryouc wherein he agreed that
there should be paid cut Of his estate III
| largo SIM Of $1,000, in return for such
services as could naturally be expected
to lie rendered, is said to be so unnat-
| ural and improbable as TO be beyond be-
|
by oral testimony. That tins strong IN
| probability is very greatly increased ny
thn entire absence Of any written cVi-
| dence OF so important n contract, "heh
,s If &c argued both Of tn" partl'G. law
| ycrs as they were, must have appreciated
| the difficulty or imposs.blIty OF proving
the existence of such a contract after th'
| death of the parties thereto without Sucl
! evidence ana without the testimony Of 8
| disintercstcd witness in relation 90 th'
| making of such a contract. and That al
| these declarations said to have Deer
made by Mr.. bradbury t" tn" witn"*S";
| above referred to Were merely iEcld"ilta
and accidental and wrre not made by hin
for the purpose Of providing witnesses L.
the existence of the contract.
The great force of these argument;
must be conceded and they have bee!
very carefully considered and weighed
nv MS. If the contract relied upon wa:
lsimply a business contract, involving
merely the payment of what might bj
believed to be an adequate conSidera
ton as an equivalent for legal or othei
services to be rendered, we should IN
doubleday be of the opinion. in view I"
the great inadequacy of the service
Il - f Ia D.