The Newtown bee., 1906-03-09
TOWN TOPICS. THE FAMOUS THORPE-MOR0AN
 CASE.

THE FAMOUS -MOR0AN CASE.
 DECISION OF JUDGE SCOTT. Charles M. Thorpe,
 NS.
 Ormel E. Morgan. ct al.
 Court of Common Pleas,
 Fairfield County,
 February 2l, 1906. Memorandum of Decision.
 The complaint, as amended, sets forth that the plaintiff, on March 23, 1903, owned in fee and was in the peacea ble possession of the tract of lana in question, and that on that day, all of the defendants unlawfully and forcl- bly, entered upon said land and erected thereon a small building, and that they are retaining possession of the building fQaniply and are continually making Fl 5 tssaaf sSatsce and noise therein for the purpose and with the effect of an- moving the plaintiff.
 The claims for relief are: 1St. An injunction restraining the m from maintaining said building on said land and from entering upon or com hitting any further acts of trespass upon the same.
 2nd. Five hundred dollars damages. The various defendants have filed three sets of answers Ormel Morgan's $ answer is a substantial denial of the complaint except paragraph 4. Henry Morgan, Merwin Morgan and Lillian Cook add to their defense of denial a second defense alleging their ownership of the land.
 The remaining defendants deny the allegations of the complaint in one defense, but in second defense prac- tically admit entering the land and erecting the building, and assert that they acted under the authority of Merwin and Henry Morgan and Lillian Cook, who are claimed to be the owners of the land.
 The parties disagree, materially, both as to what facts have been proved upon the trial and as to what issues the Court should determine. COnsid- ering the length of the trial and the small pecuniary amount involved, l ought, in the interest of the State as well as of the parties, to make a full finding upon the issues as rendered, wherever there can be any doubt as to their materiality.
 The real difficulty between the par ties arises from their conflicting claims to the ownership of small tract of land, 40 feet square, and of small pe- cuniary value.
 It must be said that neither party has produced any very conclusive chain of paper title. MT Thorpe rests his paper title on his deed of April, 1884, from Della A. Benedict, which con- veys this 40 feet square. It has ap- peared that Della A. Benedict was the wife of Cad Benedict, who bought the present Thorpe homestead on August 13, 184O, by deed which excludes the 40 feet square. There is no paper title Benedict or Della Benedict.
 The Morgans base their paper title on quit claim deed to their father given on April 29, 1865, by one Charles Briscoe and four other parties, and an- other quit-claim deed to their father from Elam Beard, dated March 13, lS55, made out on quit-claim blank.
 The 40-feet tract was never occupied so far as appears by Cad Benedict or Della Benedict; it was, certainly, not fenced in with the other property when MT Thorpe took his deed.
 It seems to me that it is just as realm of supposition, that Mrs Ben- edict included this disputed piece in her deed. by mistake, as to suppose that she or Cad Benedict acquired it after the deed of 184O. So far as the Morgan paper title is concerned, it never seems to rise above the level of a Quit-claim.
 As neither party produces satisfac- tory paper title, the position of the plaintiff is certainly much the better upon the question of possession.
 There has been much conflicting ev- idence as to the time when MT Thorpe built the fence, but 1 consider that the preponderance of evidence eStab- fishes, and l find, as fact that he en- closed this piece in 1884. At the time when he bought his homestead and found the fences in the unsatisfactory condition that they then were, it is only reasonable to suppose that he would have fenced in his land, and, as he seems to have had no suspicion that he did not have a title to this little tract, he would undoubtedly fence from the picket fence on the north around to the bridge on the south, if he built at all. In view of the strong evidence presented that he did do what we should naturally expect him to do, l think the evidence for the de- fendantS on this point is overborne.
 MT Thorpe began his possession in 1884. l find that he continued in pos
 
 any disturbance on the part of any of the MorganS, by any act which would prevent the statute of adverse posses sion from running. l find that the MorganS always considered the 40 feet square as their property and made | verbal claims to it, from time to time, but that no one of them thought it l worth while to contest the point until August, 19O1-by which time, more than 15 years of adverse possession had passed.
 It is doubted by the counsel whether I have the right under the pleadings to make binding adjudication of the state of the title; but, in view of the desira bility of terminating the legal troubles of the parties, over this tract l depart from the prudent course Ol deciding as little as possible, and finc that the plaintiff has title to thi! tract, by adverse possession. | Whether or not the plaintiff owned this land on March 23, 1903, he was a least then in the peaceable possession of it. His previous possession wa disturbed in August, 1901, by Orme Morgan, who tore down the fence; i was replaced by the plaintiff in Octo Der, 1901, and was again torn down b. unknown parties III December, 1901 Meantime an action of treSpasS ha been brought in this court by tn plaintiff against Ormel Morgan. / decision was rendered on January 14 l9O3,i in which the title was ad indicate to be in the plaintiff as against Orme Morgan.
 On March B, 1903, the plaintiff wa in peaceable possession of this proper ty and if any of the Morgans desire