Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1908-05-28

that the latter acknowledged that he
had signed some kind of a paper"
when he received the money from his
sister.
DEFENSE OPENS.
william Mowrey. the defenant, was
called to the stand. He denied that he
had ever signed any receipt for the
money received from his sister. in 9TH
er words he denied that the mark Oh
the receipt for the eighty dollars was
his mark. He denied that he had ever
seen such paper. The eighty dollars,
it was contended, was received as a
contribution nearly year before the
will was executed.
Charles NagIe, who as agent for
Mary +. Case was custodian of her
papers, testified that in November,
l9o0' he brought batch of papers be-
longing to the decedent to Danville
ana placed them on deposit in one of
the banks here. Among the papers
were two wills, mortgage and two
certificates Of deposit OF $500 each.
The latter he deposited to the credit
of Mary E. Case and drew out SllS.
which he gave to the decedent. On
that occasion, the latter told the wit
ness that she wanted to give her broth
er William, eighty dollars, as he was
crippled, was getting old and had to
work very hard.
Elmer Mowrey, son of the defendant,
was sworn, About two years ago, his
aunt, the deoedent, had visited the
witness. During her stay she remark
ed that she wanted to make Billy"
meaning father of the witness, pres
ent of some money"
Mrs. Elizabeth Alderman, daughter
of the defendant, was the last witness
called. Her testimony corroborated
that of her brother.
Thomas O.. Welsh for the defendf ut
went to the jury, speaking for twenty
minutes He was followed by Hon. H.
NJ. Hinckley for the plaintiff, who oc-
cupied the time until noon.
AAAS Wy nthb Out db uOUu. AG 4 siU
O'Clock it returned verdict for the
plaintiff for 53l. 30.
A WRIT OF REPLEvIN.
The case of Cameron Shultz VS..
Mary Crossley and John T. Crossley,
replevin, was attached Immediately
after reconvening in the afternoon.
William Kase West represented the
plaintiff and Edward Sayre Gearhart
the defendants.
Prior to Mar. 10, 1904, DR.. Shultz,
the plaintiff, was the owner Of farm
in Valley township. About the latter
date the farm was purchased by John
7. Crossley and Homer Crossley act
ing as agents for their mother, Mary
Crossley. On March 10. 1904, in the
office of Ralph Kisner, the formal
transfer Of the farm was made, Mary
Crossley along with her sons being
present.
In negotiating for the farm, it was
alleged that the defendants agreed that
the grain then growing on the farm
should be reserved. The straw was to
be leftson the farm, while the grain
was to be divided between the late
owner, the plaintiff, and the tenant
The latter was to do the harvesting.
In due time harvest time arrived and
the grain was cut and threshed by the
former tenant, who was permitted TO
haul away his share, but who, when he
came to haul away the plaintiffs
share, was stopped by the defendants,
who explained that they were holding
it as protection against certain
Judgment, which they understood had
not been satisfied
Dr. Shultz was called to the stand,
who testified to facts as stated above.
He was followed by Hiram Stetler
and William Wintersteen, both of
whom testified to the fact that the
defendants understood and admitted
that the wheat in the ground belonged
to the plaintiff and former tenant.
Ralph Kisner, Esq who drew up
the deed was the principal witness for
the plaintiff. Mr.. Kisner explained
why no allusion to any reservation of
grain was made in the deed. He had
prepared the deed making no such a
reservation and when the parties met
at his Office, on March 10, 1904, to make
transfer of the farm. DR.. Shultz, the
plaintiff, objected because the agree
ment as TO the crops had not been re-
duced TO writing. To have incorporat.
ed the reservation in the deed at that
stage of the proceedings, would have
necessitated the writing of a new deed.
Mr.. Kisner, however. declared that he
would have reduced the agreement to
writing rs desired by the plaintiff had
not the defendants explained that it
was not necessary-that they thorough
ly understood that the plaintiff was to
have one-half of the grain-that there
would be no trouble and that if any
disagreement arose they would submit
the matter TO Mr.. Kisner. Thus it was
held that the question of reservation
was arpeed unon by all parties