The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-12-27
Green Explains
 Claim On Estate 5 :s: Of His Father .n~ss
Asks Court to Give Him $2 400 of Property Worth But
 $3,00O

of Property Worth But
 5000
 Bedding, Dec. 25-The $2,400 claim of Daniel w. Green against the $S,00O estate of. his father, the late Patrick Green, was, heard in the probate court last Wednesday before w. H. Hili and Henry H. Gilbert, the com missioners John and Thomas Green, brothers of the claimant were repre- sented by Attorney Davis of Danbury and James, another brother, by New Haven lawyer, who, however. took no active part in the. proceed ings. Miss Nellie, the only other Otherwise and hence her attitude in the case was not disclosed. Attorney John J. Cullinan of Bridgeport, was counsel for the plaintiff. The latter's statement and cross ex- maination occupied about three hours. vious to the death of his mother. which occurred in 1904, she agreed to pay him $10 month to remain at home and continue his labors there. His brothers had at that time gone away and he was also talking about leaving. On account of the induce ment offered by Mrs. Green, he con- scented to stay, but no part of the promised compensation was ever paid him. The fact of the non-payment was regretfully recalled by the mother about a week before her death and she proposed making amends by turn ing over to Daniel one-half of all the money she had on deposit giving the other half to, her daughter who had also remained at home. Dr. Smith, her medical attendant, filled out at her request the papers to accomplish this proposed transfer of the funds, but. on account of the objections of fered by her husband the plan was re- linquished and the papers were torn up. Later in the hearing Dr. Smith testified in corroboratien of this point of the plaintiffs statement. Mrs. Greens estate amounted to $4, 900, all in savings banks deposits, and has been equally distributed among the five children.
 Continuing his narrative the plain tiff said that shortly after his moth- ser's decease he had a conversation with his father in which he dwelt on the 'non-fulfillment of his mothers again expressed the intention of go- ing away. His father replied that he was sorry he had opposed his wife in what she wished to do but that he strongly wished the witness to stay and look after the farm and would
 
 The terms he offered were $25 a month. Dan was to have the use of the fathers pair of horses and to have the privilege of using them to do out side work when they were not need eG at home, paying the cost of their keeping right along and retaining half their net earnings as his compensation for this phase of the bargain. The claimant said he had reserved his half and paid over the balance, but that he had never received anything ! from his father under the $25 per month agreement. These arrears made up the bill he now sought to collect.
 The contract was a verbal one and only~the principals were present when it was made so that the claimant could produce no direct evidence to- wards it's confirmation. Some indi- rect evidence was, however, present ed. John M. Sullivan and John Muen- mich. local merchants testified that Daniel Green bouaht and paid for the oats and other grain consumed by the two working horses and also settled for virtually. all the groceries used by the family. The only exception was when the elder Green bought some thing foEss which he paid in eggs pro- -dnced zhgs his. hens. w. $. Downs tes- tified that when he painted the Green buildings Dan paid the bill.
 The brothers John and Thomas were the only witnesses on the other side. They said they never heard of the fathers death and plainly indicated their disbelief in it's existence. Both related incidents tending to show that Dan had not faithfully attended to his duties of carrying on the farm opera tions and also that he was not re- spectful and considerate in his treat meHt-gf his father. On many details their evidence and that of the claim ant was entirely at variance John said that on one of his visits home a year or so before his fathers death the elder Green, who was at the time sofa. asked Dan to do the chores. "Go to hell and do your own chores,' was the reply Dan made, according to the witness. '1 expressed surprise to the - -hOusekeeper,' continued John, "that my brother should talk so to my fath- CT and she answered that this was snothing as Dan often talked much worse than that and on one occasion had either struck or violently push ed our father. The housekeeper also told me that it was a common thing for Dan to go out in the evening, os- tensibly to the store, and return in a condition showing over indulgence in intoxicants.''
 The same witness further said that his first Knowledge of Dams forth coming claim came from the house. keeper who called him aside as he was about to leave after visit home and gave him the information. Lat, CT on she tod him to beware of Dan who was a ''bad One'
 Should there be an appeal from the finding of the commissioners, as prob- ably there will, the housekeeper prom, ises to be an important factor in the consequent court proceedings. She was called on Wednesday and after testifying to another small claim against the estate was asked regard ing such knowledge. as she might have iahout the larger claim. In re. ply. she asked to be excused from giv- ing evidence on this subject as her information had been gained in what might be called a confidential capa- city and she did not wish to become in any degree a party to the dissen, esions among the heirs with all ot whom she was on friendly terms Both sides agreed to excuse her and as she then left the room she did not hear of the statements attributed to hel by John and Thomas. When she did hear of them she became highly in- dignant and said she was very sor. ry that she did not know earlier as she would have insisted upon going on the stand and meeting these state ments with a flat contradiction. They place her. from her point of view in the light of being a spy, a sneak and a traitor, and she requests The rr,nar onrraSpondpO+ t6 r,olxa fL,iu