Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-06
Lincoln County.


Newell L. Avery VS. Albert ]. Avery
Rescript. per Curtain.
In this action, the. plaintiff recov-
cred a verdict for 1892 on a promis-
sorry mote bearing date, Nov. I, 1905.
for the sum of $29.25, The cases
come to this court on motion to set
aside the verdict as against the evil
denee,
The motion must be sustained. The
verdict is clearly wrong, and should
be set aside. There is no legal consid-
Grafton for the note upon which the
verdict was rendered
At the October term of court in Lin
coin county for 1905, the plaintiff had
an action pending against the defend
ant on four promissory notes for
$25. 5000, $40 and $50 respectively. Up.
on the note for $40 there was an en-
dorsement of $50, and upon the note
for $50 there was an Endorsement of
$75.
1t appears that both parties had
computed the interest on the notes,
and that the results were slightly diff
ferent Thereupon, Mr.. Richards, the
register of deeds at Wiscasset. at the
request of the parties made another
computation, and the result reported
by him was accepted and the defend
ant testifies that he paid the full
amount due on the notes according to
the computation of Mr. Richards,
1.-TWO hundred and ninety odd dollars,
ard the costs, eleven dollars and
something
But the plaintiff then claimed. that
the defendant should pay the fees or
commissions which he, the plaintiff,
must pay his attorney for collecting
the notes. The defendant expressed
the opinion that it didn't belong to
him" to pay the PLAINTIFF lawyer, but
the plaintiff insisted that the law re-
quired him to do so and stated that
the amount of the commission was
S29.25.
The defendant did not have money
enough left, after paying the notes,
To paw this claim for commission, but
was Induced by the plaintiff to give
his note for the amount
The plaintiff denies that this note
had any reference whatever to attor-
neys fees or attorneys commission;
and testified that the defendant did
not have money enough to pay the
amount due on the notes and taxable
costs, and gave this note to supply
the deficiency
But unfortunately for the plaintiff
the original notes themselves with the
evidence, and computation of the
interest to the time of the settlement
in question shows the amount due to
4 Al ~
81 would increase the amount to
$30359 This is in exact accordance
with the testimony of the defendant.
and at variance with that of the
plaintig L is highly significant also
that the commission of 10 per cent.
upon s29250 would be s29.25, precisely
the amount for which the note in suit
was given.
The defendant was entirely without
experience or knowledge in relation
to questions of that character. The
parties We're cousins, and the plaintiff
well understood that the defendant
would accept his statement in regard
to his liability for, commissions, and
the defendant was induced to believe
that he was liable for attorneys COM
missions precisely the same as for
taxable costs.
If the plaintiff knew that his state
ment to the defendant was false. he
intended to deceive and defraud him.
He did not know it TO be correct, but
recklessly state as fact what he did
not know to be true,
Under such circumstances, it must
be held that there was no legal con-
sideration for the note.
Motion sustained; verdict set aside.