Norwich bulletin., 1914-04-08
JUDGE REEDS FINDING
 IN BUCkLIN VS. ROOT
Verdict for Defendant-Plaintffs Took
 Foolish Risk and Lost

A memorandum of decision given by Judge Joel B. Reed of the superior | court has been received at the superior court clerks office in the case of E. E. i Bucklin of Mystic and others Vs. Ed | ward l.. Root of this city in which i the judge finds for the defendant, MT l Root in an action which BuclIlin brought to recover $4.S00 involved in
 a real estate transaction.
 While the judge CharaCterizeS the action of the defendant as reprehen- sible he says it was not done for the purpose of cheating the plaintiffs out | of the S4,S00 paid at the beginning. The iniquity of the defendants con- l duct, the judge says in his decision, and the real cause of which the plain 1 tiffs have to complain is that the de- 1 fendant, while pretending to go into 1 partnership with the plaintiffs in buy ing the land for the purpose of resell
 ing it at a great advance and thereby making a fine profit on it for both, in reality was buying the land for him. self through Hilton, the dummy, for l $53, ,655.10 and selling it to himself and | the plaintiffs for s57,947.1O, and pock- eting the difference.
 l This conduct the defendant brazen- | ly attempts to uStify on the ground | that he was entitled to commission" 1 But it was dishonesty and fraud. Of course of he had told the plaintiffs the truth they would have seen through 1 the scheme and not have entered into 1t.
 But notwithstanding all this the plaintiffs cannot recover. However se- verely we may criticlse the defendants conduct in other respects, says the 1 judge, it is very clear that he did not l get the plaintiffs into the deal for the purpose of defraudins them of the S4,S00. This is abundantly shown by l the evidence.
 If they had succeeded in turning the property as contemplated. the 1 plaintiffs would very likely have re- ceived their $4.S00 back and the de- fendant would have received his com mission" Had that been the result the plaintiffs could hardly have claim ed that the defendants purpose was to defraud them of the S4,S00. But the fact that the result was disaster instead of success makes no differ ence in the defendants purpose at the beginning.
 Judge Reed further says that he doubts if any complaint could be framed that would entitle the plaintiffs to recover for the reason that it can never be known what the result of the venture would have been had the money been raised and the title to the property obtained.
 As I stated at the close of the trial, his decision says, I should find a way 1 to compensate the plaintiffs if DOS
 
 Is entitled to no favorable consider atiOn, but l cannot and I regret it. While the defendants part in the transaction was reprehensibIe. the plaintiffs themselves are not entirely ! free from unfavorable comment Their money was safe where it was They must have known that the rais- ing of so large an amount as SPA 6e7.2S in less than three months. as provided in the contract would be at tended with some hazard, notwith- standing Roots assurance that it could 1 be easily done or that he would see to | that matter himself.
 The truth is that they paid little or no attention to tho burdens imposed by the contract, but only to it's ad- VantageS. They were so sure that the property would be turned over as they expressed it, before the payments Would have to be made at all that they did not even contemplate the pos sibility of such a contingency. To be sure they were led on by the defend ants glowing ina gination. but at the same time they risked their money in the hope and expectation of getting large and quick returns. When peo- Die do that they must expect to take