Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-04-14
SUPERIOR court
Verdict Returned of S2S6.31 for
Plaintiff in Case of Charles
E. Pratt VS.. Mrs. Bessie

The first civil case before the April
term of the superior court was begun
| at the opening of Fridays session, the
case of Charles +. Pratt of Augusta
VS.. Mrs. Bessie p. Lane of Augusta.
| This is an action on a promissory note
for the sum of 1881 and grew out OF
a real estate transaction between the
two parties. Robert \. Cony and John
Madore Of this city appeared as attor-
neys for the plaintiff and Walter NJ.
Sanborn of this city was counsel for
the defendant.
The claim of the plaintiff In the
statement of the case by Attorney Cony
was that the note covered the balance
due on real estate in the TRANSACTION be-
tween the two parties. The plaintiff and
defendant had had business dealings in
regard to this and other pieces of real
estate, and in June. 1916, the plaintiff
sold the house and lot at the corner
of Eastern avenue and Hospital street
to the defendant. Later or IN July the
defendant sold the property back to the
plaintiff. During the period from July
to November, according to the claim of
the plaintiff. Mrs. Lane expressed her
| desire several times to repurchase the
property and finally in November Mr..
Pratt agreed to sell her the place for
the same price She had paid for it when
she had originally purchased it, $3.50.
The following day they went to a law
| yer's office and had the deed prepared.
and that evening they met at the office
to transfer the deed. Then Mrs. Lane
paid Mr.. Pratt $500 in money. released
a mortgage for $3.50. and gave him a
note for $2S1, all of which figured up
to about $3.50. And. according to the
claim of the plaintiff. Mr.. Pratt present
ed the note for payment and payment
upon it was refused. and since then Mr..
Pratt has not received payment on the
note or the property and Mrs. Lane has
sold the property to another.
The claim of the defendant was then
stated by Attorney Sanborn. Briefly, it
was that although the note was signed
by the defendant it was not her note
from a legal point of view and there
was not a meeting of the minds of the
parties at the time the note was given.
When Mrs. Lane called up Mr.. Pratt re-
garding the property she was negotiat-
ing to turn it over to other parties for
$3.50. The defense claimed that there
was not a clear and concise understand
ing between the parties at that time
and as there was a doubt the contract
cannot be enforced. INC there was a
claim that down to the time Of the sign
ing of the contract there was certain
conduct on the part of the plaintiff
that took from the defendant the exer-
else of her will so that she did not
clearly understand what she was sign
ing when she signed the note for 1921.
Mrs. Bessie +. Lane, the defendant,
testified that she is q resident Of Au-
gusta. She said that some time in No
vember last she had conversation with
Mr.. Pratt regarding the buying Of the
real estate in question, and subse-
quently h purchased the property.
She testified that in the telephone con-
versation with Mr.. Pratt the latter mad
told her he would sell her the property
for $500 in cash and the discharge Of
the mortgage she held for $3.50, making
the total price for the place $3.50. She
had told him she would consider 1t.
She was buying the property for some
boOy tlSc dlId was lui illlS IL ONtl "
the other parties for the same price
she paid for it. She had previously
sold the place to Mr.. Pratt and held
Mr.. Pratt's mortgage for $3.50. She had
contracted to sell the property to An
drew Nichols Of Augusta and had sold
1t to him for $3.50. Defendant had
called Mr.. Pratt again on the telephone
and Mr.. Pratt had said he was ready
to sell the place. They met at the office
of Attorney Frank G. harrington of
Augusta where h papers were to be
passed but they came to no under-
standing as to the price to be paid.
They met again that evening at the
Office and then Mr.. Nicholas did not
want to put the boundary specifica-
lions into the deed.
The defendant testified that MI.
Nicholas had said he would not pur-
chase unless he knew just what he was
buying and Mr.. Pratt had said II 1t
was to be settled at all it must be set
tied then. Mr.. Nicholas had handed $500
to Mrs. Lane and this she had turned
over with the mortgage she held to Mr..
Pratt, and Mr.. Pratt a given her
the deed. Mr.. Pratt had asked her
about more money coming to him and
she had answered no. Mr.. Pratt took
the note for 1921 which she had signed
and had put the other papers in his
pocket. Mrs. Lane testified that that
was the first time she had ever heard
that she was to pay him $500 for the
property. The place was then in her