Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-10-26
WATERvILLE CASE
HEARD WEDNESDAY
BY JUDGE CORNISH

Hearing was held before Associate
Justice Leslie c.. Cornish Wednesday
morning at the court house in the case
Of the trustees Of Waterville Aerie, No.
1899, Fraternal Order Of Eagles, VS.. es-
tate Of tho late Sumner Rowe and NJ.
s. Goodrich. John e. Nelson was at
torney for the trustees and Fred w.
Clair Of Waterville appeared as coun-
sci for the defendants. Judge Conish
reserved his decision in the case. DR..
NJ. S. Goodrich, one Of the defendants.
was present at the hearing.
The case was before the court upon
exceptions taken by the defendants to
the findings of Judge Harold E. Cook
as q master in chancery. In his argu-
ment Attorney Clair for the defendants
stated that the matter involved the
purchase of the home Of Waterville
Aerie, which was formerly the Noyes
homestead on Temple street in Water
vile. The question Of whether there
was a deed and a bond given back to
the Aerie or q mortgage had been de-
cided before the master in chancery
and the master had reported that $1,000
was due to Rowe and Goodrich.
Attorney Clair explained that the late
Sumner Rowe and DR.. Goodrich gave
a note for $1,000, the bank taking
mortgage from the trustees and also
upon Mr.. Rowe's farm. Mr.. Clair
claimed that in addition to the $1,000
allowed by the master 5000 was due
upon a note of sS77.99, which the mas
Tow. Isco a
rious amounts for interest. taxes. legal
fees and other matters. He argued that
even if the $1,000 was held sufficient
tender there was no reason why inter-
est should not be allowed and that I'M
der equitable proceedings all of these
transactions should be cleared up.
He claimed that the total amount
due previous to the hearing was
$9314.50 and that the total amount now
due the defendants was $2314.80.
Mr.. Nelson, counsel for the plaintiff,
insisted that there was a deliberate
attempt upon the part of Rowe and
Goodrich to take away the home of
Waterville Aerie from them. He declar-
ed that through the entire transaction
Rowe and Goodrich were acting solely
hOl tAS <ACl AC dIu tiidC III lllC PuAS iiAoN
of the property they gave back to the
Aerie a bond to reconvey to the Aerie
and mortgaged the property for the
Aerie and in it's behalf. After change
in the board of trustees it was claimed
that there was no bond, but that when
a bond was quoted in bill of equity
they admitted it's existence, he said. 1t
was claimed by the plaintiffs that when
the Aerie offered to pay the defendants
what they owed them they refused to
take it because they said they owned
the property, but that when the exist
ence of the bond was shown their at
titude was changed. And he claimed
that Rowe and Goodrich were custo-
dams of their own bond as trustees of
the Aerie and had never delivered it
into the keeping of the Aerie.
Attorney Nelson insisted that the in
terest and taxes had been paid by the
Aerie and showed vouchers for the
same. He claimed that the bills rem
dered had been previously paid and
that there was not an honest state
ment in the whole lot" He declared
that "they say they want to own the
property but they want us to pay out
money in furtherance of their great
wrong upon the Aerie."