Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1913-07-23
FROM THE LAW COURT.
Judgment for Defendant In Case of
Whiting VS.. Whiting.

Judgment TOR the defendant was the
finding of the law court in the case Of
Sadie Fl. Whiting against Henry Whiting,
ID. E. Hurley for plaintiff; Peters a.
Knowlton and w. e. Whiting for defend
ant.
The reseript, which is by Judge Hanson.
follows:
Action of trover for eight bonds OF the value
Of 1900 each. The writ Is dated Jan. H. 1911.
Henry whiting. the defendant. died Jan. "a,
1911, and his administrator, Samuel X. whit
ing, comes In and defends. The case Is re-
ported for Judgment upon so mneh Of the
evidence as is legally admissible. The ma
ter;sl facts are these:
In 1901. George W. whiting aud Henry
Whiting, brothers, rented box In the safe
deposit vault Of the Union Trust company at
Ellsworth. The bonds which are the subject
of this suit were property of George W.
whiting. aud were deposited in that box.
Both had access to the box, but Henry whit
Ing, by some arrangement with his brother,
removed the coupons from the bonds, and the
amounts accruing therefrom were collected
and credited to the account Of George w.
Whiting at the trust company.
IL appears that Henry Whiting righ,fully
came into possession of said bonds, and that
such arrangement continued until the death
of Henry whiting. Jan. %. 1871. IL further
appears that Henry whiting made no charge
and received no compensation for any service
he may have rendered In connection with the
| bonds.
George w. Whiting was twice married. He
| has one daughter living, who was born Of the
"A Ia Il a..
| September, 1870. and Is now living at Els
worth. The plaintiff claims ownership Of the
| bonds In question under a bill of sale from
George W. Whiting, dated Dec. 10, 1911, and
has q conveyance of all the property of George
| w. Whiting.
The foregoing Is substantially agreed 10 as
the important details OF the case to Decem-
Der. 1871, In relation to the ownership. ioca-
tiop and custody OF the bonds.
On Dec. 8, 1911, d. z. Hurley, acting for the
| plaintiff, made demand by letter upon Henry
whiting, asking for delivery OF the bonds to
the plaintiff or to himself as her attorney
No reply thereto was received by Mr.. Harley
or the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that
about Jan. 1, 1911. she made formal demand
upon Henry Whiting at his home In Ellis
worth. In the presence of her sister, Mrs
| Carr, who testified In answer to the plain
| tiR's attorney as follows;
| q. VIII you tell the jury what the con.
versation was that you heard between Mrs
| whiting and Henry whitings
| A. Mrs. Whiting asked Henry Whiting to
| deliver her up her bonds, and he told her tina,
| he could not because Mr.. Peters and Mr.
| Saunders had made request for him not &c
do So
| q. Who is Mr.. saundersf
| A. Mr.. Hutson Saunders, the father OF the
wife-former wife-of George whiting.
Q. Did Henry whiting at that time refuse
| TO deliver the bonds to your sister?
| A. He did.
| O. Did be tell her when he would deliver
themf
1 A. He did not.
| Henry Whiting did not deliver the bonds to
the plaintiff, and this suit followed. The de-
| PENDANT denies that Henry Whiting at any
| time, or In any manner, was guilty of CONVEX
| sion of these bonds. To prevent, 1t is incum-
| bent upon the plaintiff to prove both
| property in herself and conversion by the
defendant.
| Neither Henry Whiting In his lifetime, MOI
| his administrator, claimed any ownership OF
| property in the bonds, or any interest adverse
| 10 the true owner.
| The plaintiffs attorney, relying upon tbs
| second demand, says that the ground of tn,
refusal to deliver the bonds to the plaintiff il
not defense to this suit. and that the stanS
taken by Henry Whiting, and the reasons
| given therefor, constitute conversion.
Held: /. That Henry Whiting Was
| gratuitous baiiee of the bonds in suit
| 2. That the testimony fails TO show any
act on his part tending to prove an intention
TO deprive the plaintiff. or any other person
of property in the bonds, or to appropriate
4 them to his own use.
| 3. That the demand claimed was not sup
| ported by any evidence of change OF owner
| ship in the bonds, and the testimony utterly
fails to show conversion. II is therefor,
unnecessary to consider the question o.
/ ownership.
| The entry win he:
| Judgment for the defendant.