Smyrna times., 1915-11-17
NOTORIOUS KENT COUNTY
CASE DISMISSED BY COURT
.oss ENDS LONG KiLLEN-
o,,Ony FIGHT At FELTON,

p.,sinr in Court of chaneery
20. ..,v.d Certain Intricate Water
eirht and Realty Transaction
cs.,.sllo. Curtis Oh Saturday en-
..,.5 decree denying the relief
'...bt ' and sismissing the bill in the
80 ~ Jobn ". Killen and Mary
S..,vn Killen against William B.
o 49, and Francis A. Purdy. pending
: ,bs Cour. Of Chaneery in Kent
..,,,v : On March l. 1913. John W.
T;Ilsn leased to william B. Purdy
m of the water rights and the ex-
.,,.i,s right to fish in a pond located
,,'tbe farm Of Killen, near FELTON,,
"a Al the same time Purdy leased to
Tilled sll the water required TO run
mill owned by Killen. On March
: 1918. BY another writing. killen
,g,ssd 10 sell. and Purdy to buy.
,bout 40 acres Of land along the edge
4 the pond for consideration Of
n acc. Of which S25 was payable
a the signing Of the agreement and
n. balance within 80 days thereafter.
m Nav Is. 1913. the mill dam was
wspt away and the pond nearly
snptied Of water. Purdy agreed to
rebuild the dam Of concrete, provided
Killen would pay portion OF the
ost thereof. not exceeding 81, 200.
from the purchase money Of the land
old to Purdy.
sEnsd Paper Without Reading Conten'
Il was alleged that on July II,
1918. Purdy produced such an agree
nsnt and it was signed by Killen anC
Biz wife. and several days thereaftei
Z notary public produced to Killer
nd bis wife a folded paper dis
,lasing TO them only their sigma
nres to some instrument and the,
thgrsupon acknowledged the sigma
hfs to be their own. without look
irg At the rest Of the paper. Abou
OaOber 26. 1913, the Killens learned
\ ea q deed dated August u. 1913
q n puTpOrting to have been acknowl
Il eyed by them. was on record. where
n y q tract Of land containing 2
KRIS. with mill. mill dam and othe
FPefty had been conveyed 70 vii
Il ian B. Pufdy and Francis A. Pur
4 az for 81. The complainants denie
n nat il was their deed. and that the
4 bad ever made one to the defendants
md that the deed was a scheme to do
GIVE and defrsud them. and was
slcudon their title. In their answer
William B. Purdy and Francis A
& Pufdy. the defendants. set up a dee
dated July y. 1913. between u
onplainants and defendants, theret
ne 20 acres and the mill. &c
we're conveyed TO the defendants SUI
Jet to two mortgages at 50. .OC
each. There was also shown
agreement concerning repairs al
'azes in writing dated July u. 191
4 Hgned by the eomplainants and d
d isndsnts.
Denied any knowledge Of Signing De
The eOmblainants denied MAXI
ne agreement contained in I
.lt'en papers produced by the
isndantS and stated that if the
genuine signatures appear TO such
II ieement as that produced by I
'aenoants that sheets Of par
ua been frsugulently inserted in I
81 Rieement with different provision
ao when they signed the pap,
Il .au before them they thought III
II Nsie signing papers containing otl
s'O''sions not in them. They a
N .'n'eo' signing the deed. and s
-'' Il their guenuine signatui
-rpsaf thereto. they thought III
.ae signing not a deed. but
1,p'este copy Of an agreeme
zoe defendants deny the insert
" y olHerent sheets in the contra
y ~ state that both Of the contra
& moao'ed By them are in exactly
n s e condition as when signed
.',ered I've, to the defendants. The
n Sn' . cancellation Of the deed
Il gs'petnal injunction to restrain
Po,eenent nee Of the contracts. J,
"'enolson and Alexander NJ. ID
Dssre5 p.s for the cOmplainants.
r.. 80 r. Richards and w. Wat
ns'on Of the defendants.
W IENh CAHlTraa -.