Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1906-09-08
DECIDED SHAFFtR CASE |
Miss Daniels Awarded $3.50 BY
Judge Faulkner Today.
is AN INTERESTING SUIT.
Plaintiff Sued To Enforce Terms of
Contract Entered Into With
Decedent "a Years Ago.

OGCcAEhS 81 4 cal "A 81
In theCircuit court Wednesday morn.
ing, Judge Faulkner handed down his
decision in the salt of Miss Rebecca
Daniels against the estate of the late
d. w. Shaffsr, which suit has been
pending for about two. years, and
which was heard before Special Com
mis- ioner Colston several months ago
and Il on plal led in the hands OF Judge
FaulBLer Tor review.
As Will be remembered. Miss Dan
iels brought the suit under the terms
of a contract entered into between Mr.
Shaffer and herself about 1882, when
the plaintiff went 10 live with him a.
his house keeper Mr.. Shaffer, who
was an uncle of Miss Daniels, agreed
10 divide the net proceeds Of the
farm on which he then lived with
Miss Daniels % long as SHE remained
with bin. and in tie event of her re-
manning with him until his death, he
was TO mike provision for rer comf1r-
tabls maintenance 50 long as she
lived. After Mr. Shatfer's death Miss
Daniels brought suit. claiming that
with tie exception of several hundred
dollor's received at different periods,
the terms Of the agreement had not
been complied with, and asked for
a settlement.
Special Commissioner Colston took
the evidence in the case, which was
voluminous, and awarded the plaintiff
about So 600. The .uit then went
into the hards of Judge Faulkner.
In his opinion today. Judge Faulkner
stated that the proposition made By
Mr.. Shaffer to Miss Daniels was clear
and unmistasable contract. and that
there was no evidence to indicate
that any of its provisions had been
fulfilled by the decedent. with the
exception of the payment of several
sums OF monev, amounting to about
1925, and that, as no record of the
dates Of such payments was available,
he was unable TO separate the sum to
show what payments came within the
time limit. thus compelling him to
disregard these payments in summing
M the amount due the plaintiff at
this time. He separated the amount
awarded the plaintiff into two Dor
tions, the first being her share of the
proceeds OF the farm, and the second
being lnmp sum for the proper main
tenance of Miss Daniels. under the
terms of the agreement The court
estimated that one half the net rro-
ceeds of the farm would be $500 per
year, but that as the defendant had
plead the statute of limitation for the
first 10 yems. he would be compelled
to award the plaintiff only the amount
accIuing during the remainder Of the
time. or antil the death of Mr.. Shatfer.
This amount the court stated, would
now he $2.770. including interest.
The amount stipulated in the contract
that was to be given Miss Daniels toi
her maintenance after the death at
her nncle. the court fixed at IS, j3S.
which would make the total amount
awarded the plaintiff by the court
IS. 35s. In fixing the amount due
Miss Daniels for Tier maintenance
du,ing the remainder of her life TIE
court stated that his question was de.
ended according to the mortuary tables
giving the probable number of wears,
under ordinary circumstances, vet re.
mainng to the Plaintiff. the estimate
being $500 per year for between 10
and l6 years.
The sttorn-vs for botn sides of the
suit heard tho verdict of the court
without comment.
lNfE