Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1908-07-30

ants are incorrect in stating that
there was a judgment of this court
| at that time, that plaintiff was of
!, sound mind and competent to trans
act business. 1t is true that that
, action was dismissed and a guardian
, was not appointed after a hearing
1t is admitted that the court must
ficent to justly him in appointing a
, guardian at that time. The cause
of insufficiency of the evidence then
is apparent. 1t is clearly shown that
the plaintiff was kept isolated: that
her daughters We're not allowed to
see her or speak with her; that de-
. PENDANT Scott r. Stevens, kept her
in his possession and in such a con-
dition that the party petitioning for
a guardian was unable to secure evil
dence of her real condition. The eX-
animation made by Drs. Schumacher
and Watkins was made at defendants
request prior to that hearing, how
ever, and it is the testimony of all
the witnesses, who have observed
plaintiff that she was constantly de-
clining mentally from 90 until the
time said purported deed was eXecut-
ed, and since.
Defendants claim fraud must be
clearly shown and is not presumed.
Fraud is generally shown by it's well
known badges. Even weakness of
mind on the part of the plaintiff
would indicate that influence was
brought to bear. 1t is shown, how
ever, that she is totally incompetent
and unable to comprehend or under
stand "A conveyance. This being the
case, she could make no conveyance.
1t was impossible for her to give
ability to give consent. Another
badge of fraud is the manner in
which she was kept apart from her
daughters, unsuitably clothed and
in filthy condition. This was no
doubt with some object in view. The
law will not presume even the de-
PENDANT, Scott r. Stevens, so brutal
as to deprive his mother of the care,
assistance and comfort of her grown
daughters, without some purpose.
That he should have done SO at all,
seems monstrous; but that he should
have so acted without any object to
be accomplished thereby, is incon-
ceivable.
Another indication of fraud is the
fiduciary relation which defendant.
Scott r. Stevens, bore to plaintiff at
the time of the conveyance. He was
administrator of the estate. She, if
mentally competent, as well as the
other children, had right to rely
upon him for fair dealing.
Perhaps the strongest badge of
fraud is the lack of consideration for
| the deed. Defendants claim plain
tiff did not attempt to show want
of consideration. 1t was shown on
trial, that plaintiff has no mind and
has not had since she left the GUS
tody of Scott r. Stevens about De-
cember 80, 1906. She clearly could
give no account of consideration
if had been paid. 1t is shown that
the guardian upon his appointment,
few weeks later, made search and
inquiry, and was unable to find any
money or property in the possession
of the plaintiff, or which had come
into her hands. 1t is shown that
when the homestead in Aberdeen
was sold, payment was made by
check. This check was made to APP
pear endorsed by plaintiff, and it was
then endorsed by Scott R. Stevens,
the defendant, who evidently obtain
ed the money from the bank; but not
even that money was found in the
possession of the plaintiff when the
guardian was appointed In the
conveyance at issue in this case, it
/ is not shown that even check was
ever given plaintiff. She evidently
received neither check, money or
other consideration. She did not
even receive suitable clothing dur
ing her Imprisonment at the hands
of this administrator. When the
guardian, Immediately after his quail
ification, appealed to Scott r. Stew
ems for plaintiffs property, he was
| told that she had none to his know
| ledge. If consideration of $4,000
90 had been given for this land, to
her in her absolutely helpless and
imbecile condition would Scott r.
Stevens, her custodian, not have
know of it's whereabouts? Would he
have paid her this money, as well as
other thousands received by him,
knowing her mental condition, with
out making any inquiry, or having
any knowledge of how she disposed
of such sums?
Defendants next claim that even
though the court considers case has
haen made oft against Scott r Stew