Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-04-10

u, 1918.
farm a few DAYS ago and he stated
that he did not think the lines were run
according to the dee1s. He also testi-
fed that he promised to telephone NJ
Kelley, the defendant, to be at NJ Rich
ards Office at the time of the meeting
and he did telephone. talking with Mrs
Kelley.
Edwin Kelley Of Vienna, the defend
ant. then took the stnad and testi-
fed that he did not see Mr.. Robinson,
the plaintiff, at the time the contract
was signed but some time later saw Mr.
Robinson and showed him over the East
and West lots, and also let Mr.. Robinson
see the deed. Mr. Robinson making no
complaint. At the appointed time of the
meeting in Mr.. Richards ofiice at Farm
tngton Oct. %, 1914. Mr. Robinson said
that he could not get clear title to the
place. Mr.. Jack. the agent for the Strout
Farm Agency. acted largely for Mr.
Kelley in the conversation which ensued
and told Mr.. Robinson that he was ready
to give him good title and deed any
time he was ready to accept It, Upon
cross-examination Mr.. Kelley stated that
when showing Mr.. Robinson over the
place he pointed out to Mr.. Robinson
some Of the stakes and stones mentioned
in the ded and also pointed out Mud
Pond but the defendant did not know
whether or not this pend was the spring
mentioned in the deed. He testified that
he knew nothing of the Lovetoy or
the Jonathan Davis farm Mr.. Robinson
wrote Mr.. Kelley that he wanted an alb
stract ri the deed but Mr. kelley did
not send it 20 him Mr.. Kelley did not
think that the survey of the place, which
was made a short time ago, was run
according to the deeds. Mr.. Kelley told
Mr. Robinson that he would give him
the boundaries in the deed as they were
given to him except that he would give
him warrenty deed The orchard
piece however Mr.. Kelley agreed to
bound. Mr.. Kelley refused to have the
farm surveyed for the deed but offered
to Mr.. Robinson the deed that he had
received
At this point the morning session
was adjourned. The case was re-
sumed at the opening Of court at
P. NJ.
Afternoon Session
Albert r. Jack of Pennington, agent
Of the Strout Farm Agency took the
stand. He testified that after Mr..
Robinson had looked over the farm
which is the subject Of the controver
sy with him (Mr. jack the plaintiff
agreed to buy and paid 5000 down. Mr..
Jack told him that if they could not
get him a clear title they did not wish
to deed him the place. The witness
read letter from Mr. Robinson dated
Oct. 10. 1914 acking Mr.. Jack for the
details Of proceeding in making the
transaction by mail. The letter was
delayed in the mail but when the wit
ness received it he answered, giving
the desired information. In October
Mr.. Robinson met Mr.. Jack at Farm
ington. Mr.. Robinson claimed that the
deed was not good and in regard to
the orchard piece Mr.. Jack suggested
warranty deed as efe. Finally Mr..
Jack asked him If he would accept am
kind of deed and Mr.. Robinson said
he would not. AS they were leaving
the office Mr.. Robinson asked Mr..
Jack for thes2oo that he had deposit
ed but Mr.. Jack said that he could
not give it to him according to the
terms of the contract. Upon cross
examination the witness stated that
Mr. Robinson had suggested a survey
but the witness thought that Mr.. KEEL
| ley said he was willing if Mr.. Rob
inson would pay for it. Mr.. Robin
son was offered warranty deed but
Mr.. Kelley refused to have the deed
made according TO q survey unless
Mr.. Robinson would pay for the sur
vey. Mr.. Jack also stated that at the
meeting at Mr. Richards office Mr..
Robinson was not asked for the $500
nor for the mortgage for s400 upon
the property before he got the deed.
Kenneth A. Rollins. a lawyer associated
with Attorney Richards at Pennington,
was the next witness for the defence. He
testified as to the meeting of Messrs.
Robinson, Kelley and Jack at Mr.. Rich
ards Office on Oct. %, 1914. He heard
Mr.. Robinson object to the description
Of an orchard piece of land. He then
stated the conversation between the par
ties as he heard it. it being in sub
stance as had been testified previously.
Upon cross-examination he stated that he
heard no objection because Mr.. Robin
son did not produce his money or mort
gageeat the meeting.
Contentious Of Defense
The attorney for the defence, E E.
Richards, then made his plea to the jury
According to his arguments it would ap-
pear that Mr.. Robinson had changed his
mind in regard to buying the farm after
he had made the contract. He then read
the old deed which had been given from
time to time as the place changed hands,
In view of showing that the deed de-
scribed the land well. According to the
terms of the contract, if either party
failed to carry out the terms Of the con-
tract he was to forfeit 500, and Mr.. Rich
ards argued that therefore the plaintiff
must not look to the defendant for what
he had paid in. Mr.. Richards stated that
Mr.. Kelley did everything that the law !
required him to do and is not responsible |
for the damages against him in the suit |
Contentious Of Plaintiff
Mr.. Sanborn, the attorney for the plain
tiff, read the old contract in view of |
showing that the boundaries were OBJ
scure. He argued that if Mr.. Robinson