Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-10-30

most simple ana lmaSlndDle, tHe act VI
a child, the move of a feeble mlnd.
IIewellyn Stevens was a shrewd, hon
est man in his prime. This PROPOSE
ton is one of the premises in the case.
1t has been supported, never denied
during the case, said Attorney Thomp-
son Again he bore upon the failure
of the witnesses for the defence to note
any changes.
Attorney Thompson dwelt strongly
upon the condition of mind brought out
that tine late Mr. Stevens could re-
member nothing about the transaction.
Attorney HcScltOn, said Attorney
| Thompson, declared that there had been
| no evidence to show that Mr.. Stevens
had been incapable the day of the
| transaction. Mr.. Thompson claimed
| that there was evidence to this effect.
| The childish statements made by Mr..
Stevens just after the deed was Thade
| out were evidence. Would a shrewd
calm man of Mr.. Stevens years have
made such statements then, or would
he have felt the seriousness of the
| sit uatit,n and waited awhile, asked Mr..
| Thompson
| NJ Stevens ordinary business.
| claimed the attorney, he could do as
second nature. He had done them all
his life. he could transact such bust
ness as q man walks in his sleep. But.
said Mr.. Thompson, when n man comes
to the point of giving away all he has,
it take : a different frame of mind,
serious consideration, the thought OF
| justice 10 children and creditors.
Attorney Thompson declared that he
| h.,I ,ohy ,,-ifn -l,.,h o1 L.
Mr. Stevens all their lives and who
| were outside the little Belgrade clique,
| whore. ne said. subtle influences were
working and had been for the past two
years, during which time this case had
been the one topic OF conversation.
These witnesses had marked changes in
Mr. Stevens mental condition. MIR.
Thompson commented upon the free
dom with which Mr. Stevens talked of
the ira .lsaction. He asked if this were
tic act of careful business man.
What was the necessity of the, Sc
crccy maintained about the transaction
toward the other question, urged the
attorney Why did not sthe Cooks talk
the matter over with the other MEN,
ber:' of the family?
The attitude of Ernest A. Cook one
of the defendants. after the transac-
ton. was considered by Attorney
| Thompson.
The trend of the latter part of At
torncy ThOmpsOns argument was an
arraignment of Ernest 4. Cook. whom
he declared to be the real defendant in
the case and whose acts and attitude
from first to last he belittled and
scored harShly.
Attorney Thompson's argument last
ed one hour.
Justice Spear stated that his finding
would not be based upon the testimony
of any witnesses so that they might
appear to have willingly and deliter.
ately testified to falsehood.
An interesting case on the docket fol
the supreme judicial court is that 81
Charles w. Hotchkiss of Chicago, Ills.
versus the Bon Air Coal and Iron Com.
pany. q corporation organized under
the general laws of Maine. The &C
damnum is placed at 100000.
tn" first article in the writ alleges
that the defendant on the date of the
writ was indebted to the plaintiff in the
sum Of S1Go.006. and being so indebted
the dcft ndant, in consideration thereof
then and there promised to pay thu
plaintiff this sum on demand and ye
often thereto requested, the defendan
has never paid the same and refuse.
so II do.
G The second article alleges that thu
: defendant on the date Of the writ wa
indebted to the nlaintiff in the sum o
= $l60. 2G6.G7 for SO much money by thu
said defendant before that time hat
,-,,1 -,
= plaintiff; and being 50 indebted. tn
!, sad defendant. in consideration there
of. tfen and there promised tn
plaintiff to pay him the last said men
toned sum on demand. yet often there
| to requested the said defendant ha
! never paid the same, but neglccts an,
| refuses 50 to do
q The third article alleges that the sal,
= defendant at Augusta OH the date o
4 this writ. was indebted to the plaintiff
Ill the further sum of $21,65G.97 for s
, rurh money by the plaintiff befor
:, that time paid, laid out and expende,
to and for the use of the said defend
, ant ut ITS Srecial instance and request
, and being so indebted, the said defend
ant, in consideration thereof then an,
, there promised the plaintiff to pay hin
the Sald aforementioned sum on de
mand. yet though often thereto re
uuested, the said defendant has neve
paid the same, but neglects and re
fuses so to do.
The fourth article alleges that tn,
: said defendant at said Augusta. to wit
+ at Nashville in the state of Tennessee
D ther"afterWardS, to wit, on the day o
f the date of this writ being indebted t,
the plaintiff in the further sum of $13J
900 for other money, by the said de
. PENDANT before that time had and re
ceiNed TO and for the use of the plain
tiff; and also for other money befor,
that time by the plaintiff paid. laid ou
5 and expended to the use Of said defend
ant at its special instance and request
!, ana also for other money for interes
! then due the plaintiff from said de.
PENDANT on other moneys then OWNS
the plaintiff by said defendant for di.
vers long spaces of time then elapsed
in consequence thereof then and there
promised the plaintiff to pay him the
| several moneys aforesaid on demand