Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-03-16
SUPREME COURT
Defense Opened in Case of Olga
M. Gordon vs.. w. D.. Hutchins
and William B. Kendall

Near the close or IhurSdayS session
of the supreme court the defense was
opened in the case of Olga NJ. Gordon
of Pittston vs.. w. D. Hutchins Of Au-
gusta and William B. Kendall of Bow
doinham, which has been holding the
attention of the court since Tuesday
morning. The case will be resumed at
10 o'clock his morning.
A large part of the Thursday fore
noon session was devoted to the cross
examination Of Henry D. Gordon of
North Pittston, who testified in partic-
ular about work he had done on the
farm. including the building of fences,
the clearing of land and the cutting of
bushes.
Mrs. Olga M. Gordon Of North Pitts
ton, the plaintiff in the action and the
wife Of the previous witness, gave tes-
timony which confirmed that previous
ly given in the case regarding the con-
~Nersation between Mr.. Hutchins and
Mr.. Gordon at Sullivan about the farm
in question.
J. E. Leonard Of Whitefeld was re-
called to the stand and he testified
that. the hay cut on "Sunnyside Farm"
was 10 1-2 tons in 1910 and IA IL tons
~ - ". - oC"0Il vi A>oilI IlllS
ton and John Dunn of Pittston gave
testimony in regard to the orchard on
the farm. Mr.. Jewett testified at the
opening Of the afternoon session that
the apple trees were not thrifty and
that the orchard for the last 20 years
had been badly neglected. w. B. Hewie
also gave testimony regarding the or
chard.
Mrs. Olga NJ. Gordon testified that
accompanied by her husband she went
in 1912 to Gardiner where they met
Mr.. Barnes. and they also saw him
there in 1918. In each case they had had
conversation with Mr.. Barnes. And she
said she had seen Mr.. Gordon working
on the farm and making repairs on the
buildings. She knew Of his building
fences and ploughing.
Upon cross-eXamination she said
that when Mr.. Gordon found certain
conditions on the farm he looked at
the bright side n was cheerful. In
1914 he found that the orchard was not
fenced for hogs and neighbors had
told them hat there had never been
any hogs in the orchard. She said that
their disappointment about conditions
on the farm came by degrees. She tes-
titled that they We're disappointed in
the quality Of the hay and she said the
apples were mostly cider apples.
Mr.. Gordon testified regarding what he
received for lumber he cut on the farm.
At that point the testimony of the plant
ifs witnesses was closed.
Attorney Mclean moved for a non-suit
on the grounds that no fraud had been
Shou, tI,ot aCc,,p,eA~ ~ ,.o -o,-1
the plaintiff rad waived all fraud, that
the plaintiff had made an election, and
that there had been no recession. The
motion was overruled by the court.
Defense
The defence in the action, a denial of
any fraud in the sale of the farm, was
then stated by Attorney Southland. The
claim of the defence was that Mr.. Hutch
ms did not misrepresent the place ex-
cept as to the matter of the telephone
and in that he was mistaken, and the
defence proposed to show that Mr.. Cor
don could not have been deceived by the
farm for he had been there and had gone
over it previous to buying it, that the
orchard was thrifty and in 1911 the hay
crop had been IA tons strong, that when
Mr.. Gordon went onto the farm he was
satisfied with 1t. hat everything was all
right until Mr.. Hutchins began to urge
payments, that Mr.. Gordon had cut off
a greater amount of lumber than he stat
ed and that the value of the lumber was
in excess of what Mr.. Gordon had stated,
and, lastly. that Mr.. Gordon was not a
practical farmer.
Ten witnesses were sworn for the de-
fence.
f. j. Ripley Of Whiteheld testified that
Mr.. Gordon had sold him shingles at an
average of 81 per NJ. and upon cross-ex-
animation he said there were about $4,000
shingles in all.
Frank Hattin of North Whitefeld tes-
tilted that he had bought two lots OF
timber from Mr.. Gordon, 300 feet at SIS
per NJ in 1918. and 700 feet at $50 in 1914.
Judson E. Parker of Whitefield tes-
titled that he now lives on "~Sunnyside
Farm" having moved there two years
e after Mr.. Gordon had vacated. He
said that in his opinion the farm had
not. been carried on properly and that
in the orchard limbs had been sawed
from the trees and left on the ground,
and he said that the trees are thrifty.