Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-04-14

possession and she subsequently sold
it to Mr.. Nicholas for $3.50. And she
testified that wien she signed the note
she did not have a clear understanding
Of what she vas signing.
Upon cross-cxamination by Attor-
ney Cony, Mrs. Lane testified Mr.. Pratt
did not know for whom she was buying
the property before they met at the at
torney'S office. She testified that she
did not know she was signing a note
that held her responsible for 1921, but
Mr.. Pratt seemed determined she
should sign it So she did it. She had
told Mr.. Pratt she would sign it but
she would not pay it until she knew if
she owed it.
Andrew L. Nicholas Of Augusta tes-
tilted that he had purchased the prop
erty Of Mrs. Lane. He said that on the
evening the papers were passed there
was some argument about putting the
mi of feet into the deed. Regard
ing the transaction he testified that
Mrs. Lane had said she did not have
any money there. and he had passed
her over $500 and had taken her note.
Then Mr.. Pratt and Mrs. Lane had
transacted their business.
Witness upon cross-examination said
he did not think Mr.. Pratt exercised
any improper influence to get Mrs.
Lane to sign the note. And he said
that Mrs. Lane seemed excited on the
night she signed the note. She testi-
he'd upon cross-eXamination that she
saw nothing unnatural in the proceed
ings.
Charles F.. Pratt. the plaintiff. went
on the stand at the opening of the af-
ternoon session. He stated hat Mrs.
Lane had told him that she would give
MN the same as he paid for the farm.
She gave him $500. the mortgage for
$3.50 n a note for S2S1.25. the last
named amount being $500, less the in
terest on the mortgage, which amount
ed to S18.70. The figures were submit
ted to Mrs. Lane and she agreed to
them. In reply to the inquiry by the
court Mr.. Pratt stated hat the lot was
the same as Mrs. Lane had sold him
except hat there was 10 feet addition
al conveyed by him. He stated on
cross examination that the reason he
took the promissory note instead of
the none which he might have had
within a day or two was because he
wanted some sort of security. He did
not know that Mr.. Nicholas was to
buy the property until his wife went
in to Sign the deed. Mrs. Lane told
witness that she owed him the differ
nee between the $500 and tn $3.50
mortgage and the $3.50, which he had
paid for the property.
Mrs. Pratt. wife of Charles E. Pratt,
testified as to telephone conversations
in regard to the sale of the property.
D. l.. Hysom of Augusta testified
that Mrs. Lane originally paid $3.50
when she purchased the property in
June, 1916. All that he knew bou the
November sale was by hearsay.
Attorney Sanborn in closing for the
defendant commended that thes action
Of Mr.. Pratt after receiving the note
indicated that he realized the circum-
stances under which it was secured.
The whole question was whether there
was a meeting of the minds and that
n party understood one thing and
n another in this contract.
Attorney Cony closed for the plain
tiff, argued that the note was a fair
one, executed in a lawyers office and
in the presence of witnesses, and that
there was no duress in connection with
the giving of the note.
Judge Beane then gave the charge to
the jury and the jurors retired at 4.2O
p. M. with the case, returning at
about 5 o'clock with a verdict of
S2S6.31 for the plaintiff.
The trial Of civil cases will be re-
sumed this morning.