Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-12-17

Following are the latest reScriptS
from the law court, being decisions in
cases from Andrpscoggin, Cumberland.
Knox. Penobscot ana Washington
counties:
ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY.
A. III. ireland, IT ais. y. Jordan White,
Admr. Il, script, Peabody. j..
Action on d pronllsOiy note brought 10y
tie inusrsrIs against thc administrator
Oh the DECEASED nlikcF.
The note IS as follows
Lewiston, October -, lyU3.
For vahe received pf"m's" % pay
Jason Kusstl. Or order. IN" sum oi ilEe
hundred dollars. payable a. -er my d"alh,
Melinda T. TarhOx.
(k.uLorscdJ Jason Russell.
M-Iind,, n T.IriIox died IN March l"Vi.
ag.,. about eighty, and the di-ndint
was appointed and qualified as admins
TRAITOR Of her estate
Thee offences are made under the
pI-adlngs: First. that Mrs. TarboX did
not sign ihc not.; second. If sh" DID S.Sn
IL sh,. was Induced 10 do 50 by fraud;
and third, that ~ the time Oi signing SHE
was OF unsound mind Thu. jury wcr,. dI-
Tecied To- make special findings on each
of tn, 50 points. They found ina she did
sign tn. note. that th-r" was no fraud,
and that at the tim" "i -..ad signing. she
was of ur"olHd mind.
The verdict was for III" d"f'nd;.E' and
the case comes before the law court on
and exec ptionS to III" ruling of the pre-
siding justice. allowing. against the pl.I:u-
tir' objection. Part "f III" ties; mony Of
TWO physicians. in general rrart'cr. WI"
had attended Ms. TarboN professionally,
in reference to her mental capacity.
Or. Renwicil IL answer to questions
gave tn" following testimony
q. what did you observe as to her
mental condition that IS getting at her
mental condition. talking to her. and h"r
answers. and what she said in response
to the questions?
A. | observed that her mental cOndi-
ton was very much impaired
Q. Can you tell. Dr. whether her ans
wers to your questions Were wandering
or not. whether or not they would meet
your questions?
A. | should say they wouldn't meet
my questions. Very incoh.rcnt.
Q. Was her trouble chiefly in her mind
A. couldn't answer that question.
should say both.
Q. Was there ANYTHING about her cos
as you observed il then. to Indicate that
her condition was one that came upon
her suddenly the first day Of November.
or whether it had been gradual trans
fer in her nAinf. IN reaching that point?
A. II hal been gradual
Q. Wer" the conditions You observed,
on tho first day Of Ncv' mber 1902
chronic conditions. or acute conditions?
A. Chronic.
It appears that this physician had seen
Mrs Tarbox four times as his patient.
visiting her first November l. 1909.
DR. Curtis was called to attend her tho
first day Of December 1892. and made an
examination IN diagnosis of her case
He testified in answer to questions as
follows
Q. Should Won shy that the condition
Of her mind that YOU have G"srr.h"d was
a condition that was acute. or was it
chronic condition?
a. It seemed 30 me like a SCnIlr trouble
coming on gradually.
Tho hill Of exceptions relates solely To-
~ "i'nlieS sion of tbs testimony.
M 't,a .'n for I INV iriri arnli"S only
to - i,,,' I; ~ ~" iu'v tina thc maxi"
Of IT, 49,: vas at IL" time Of signing ~
unsound mind
There is ~ cofnullirt that IL" rharg'
Of the ,r..Si,ii,l.c JuStir.. did rot rr"ser.
the rrIl $ nf law ~ which the mcnta!
capacity Of tn" nrnlciSpr of III" note " -
to he fi.s'cr'nu'd upon the ovid nee SlI-
mitted to u" Jury. The testimony. PR
sentod incidents. acts. and condition
CON radctorv III tendency. bat tho in"
from the vhol" history "f II" monte
condition Of Mrs. Tarh"v shortly h"f"r,
and after Sh" signed tn" .nr:C. decd q
that Sh" was incnrrrt'nt.
The testimony az III" physicians refer
red 20. whether legally admiSS'lc "r no,
CONSTITUTED a part OF IN" drirhI mn
evidence which tn" Jury must hay" found
was az greater weight than til" opposing
evidence offered hv the plant ifs
The law generally pre- Sum"S m"ntal
sourdncss. but when legal incompetence
IS alleged f'r tn" purpose Of showing that
an instrument. creating. by its terms. 4"
obligation. IS thereby invalid. 1t must h"
proved hy a pr"pOnderanCC of cVidenc
The note itself although found by tn"
jury not to b" fraudulent. does not an
pear to he an ord nary commercial ira -
action. and sc;eral witnesses ACQUAINTED
with Mrs TarhoX testify Ia acts and
conversations ContCmporaneouS With til"
date OF til" note indie at.ng changes IN
hnr habits and mental r"nd ti"n. plainly
noticeable To them. And the testimony
Of the doctors who had an opportunity to
observe her. showed that hor talk was
disconnected ano incohcrcnt. and that her
condition Of mind indicated scnilc decay.
Oprosin% testimony was offered by tn"
plaintiffs witnesses even more numerous
who had transacted ordinary business
with her and of friends who had con
verscd with her not long previous to the
date Of tn" note tending to prove thu
the only obs, rvablr change in her was
that she was mere feeble. and was grow
ing old II is difficult to determine in all
cases when there is decay of the crntal
faculties in old age. whether th""c is dis
order Of til" mind which would render TIC
individual affected incompetent t. trans
act business. or mCTN fceblcncSS Of the
mental faculties which you'll MT prevent
the mind from acting normally. No ex-
pertS We're called to explain tho diStinc-
ton in this case hut attending physicians
have testified not only IN Tho same man
Nor as other witnesses haV" testified Ia
acts and conditions observed hv ihrm
bat have been allowed to state what III"
facts which they observed indicated aS
the condition OF the rati"r''S mind: lnd
We SOC no reason to disturb the 4. r,iiC. ~
the jury. rs being against tn, weight al
evidence. TIL" exceptions cannot ~ S,is-
taircd. The testimony of pr. Rcrwick
herein quoted. WAS CLEARLY admissible ~
the authority Of cases decided w this
court. in WHICH q has y" N hcli tia;
tkillful and reputable physicians although
not experts uron the subject. may tcstift
10 tho mental condition Of their patterns
when they have had adequate opportuni-
OF observing and iudST " their men,
tal Qualities. and that having had 1prnr-
tuhi'N 10 observe the manifestations Of
INC mental disease, they may testify n,
70 us nature. The TESTIMONY Of DR. Cur
US must he considered admissible nv the
satnc rule undcr the bill of exceptions.
Exceptions ovcrrnIed
Reed Dec. 18th, 1906.