Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-09-24
Waldo County Supreme Court

The first case to come to trial at the
September term of the supreme Judi
cial court which convened in this city
yesterday, Associate Justice Bird OF
Portland presiding, was that of Bur
lington NJ. Barker VS.. Perlie and An
ME J.. York, parties of Troy.
The suit Is brought to recover the
balance of payment of a promory note,
given the plaintiff by the defendants,
the original note being $1S5.
The story of the case as told by the
plaintiff and his wife, Mrs. Maude Bar
ker, is that in July of 1912, Mr.. YORK
came tc their house in Troy and pur-
chased three cows. He gave his note
for S1S5, which he signed and also
signed the name of his wife, saying
that he and she had an agreement
whereby each signed the others name
in business agreements, when neces-
sary Mr.. York was not present when
the 11ote was signed, but the plalntlr1
testified that on a former occasion,
one of the Perks had signed note Tor
both. he could not remember which 1t
WIS. because one did not have his or
her glasses and could not see to sign.
The plaintiff further testified that he
later met Mr. and Mrs. York on the
road and that while speaking of the
transaction. he asked Mrs. York II
she understood that her name had
been signed to the note and she an
swered yes" He also testified that
later he took back one of the cows and
allowed them something on the note
and that still later Mrs. York brought
back the other two and although he
would not allow her their value on
tha note he agreed to sell them and
credit her with what he got for them,
and this he did. Later he saw Mr..
York who agreed to pay the balance
giving a new note, this she later re-
fused to do, saying she had changed
her mind.
JInon cross-examination Mr.. Barker
said that he did not know that Mr..
York had much liquor aboard at the
time of the transaction. Witness said
that he is a farmer and did more or
less trading in cows and horses. Testi-
fed that York left home some months
after the transaction and to his knoWl-
edge had not returned.
Mrs. Barker, wife of the plaintiff,
testified that she was present when Mr.
and MIS-. DIX Sdiu lIiat 'iSS eeio"~N
each other to sign their names.
Mrs. York one of the defendants In
tho case and wife of the principal de-
PENDANT. testified that she was not
nreseut when the note was signed, as
She was at that time in Waterville do
ing Homework for hire. She further
more testified that she had no knoWl-
edge of the notes existence until
served with papers in this suit. Denied
dramatically that she ever had any
such conversation in regard to allow
ing her husband to sign her name to
legal papers. Said that her husband
drank excessively and that when she
came home from Waterville she found
the house in confusion and a large
quantity Of four-quart whiskey bot
ties in evidence of his debauch. Said
that she took back the cows uncondi-
tionally to Mr. Barker and that her
husband left home and had never been
back That the farm was in her name
but hiatt her husband took with him
the horse he had given as security for
the note, when he went. She said that
Barker later tried to get her to sign
another note giving her farm as secur-
ity but she refused. He is after my
farm, that's what he wants." was her
somewhat spirited statement.