Norwich bulletin., 1918-05-02

There was 8 turn in the case of Patrick H. Kelley against Mrs. Harry B. Wilkins that bordered on the sen sational just before the superior court adjourned for the day Tuesday after noon, and before the testimony had been concluded. Attorney Harry B. Agard, counsel for defendant, asked that the jury be retired. as he desired to have consultation with Judge Doran while the jury was not present After the jurors filed to the jury room,
 Mr. Agard, with Attorney John J. Dunn, conferred with the court. MT 1 Agard said he had been deceived by his client and desired to withdraw from the case. Mrs. Wilkins had told l him that when she and her husband
 separated her husband took all there
 was on the farm and disposed of the same, leaving her with a horse and
 wagon only. But, as shown in letters l introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, i this statement was not true, as she | l had offered Kelley a Jersey COW, some pigs and farming implements, at diff | 1 feFent times, in settlement of the ac- 1 count, which she told her counsel she did not owe, did not contract, and l which should be paid by her husband, ! Harry Wilkins. Mir. Agard said his l client had deliberately lied to him and i that he wanted to be excused from defending client who would not con- fide to him the real facts in the case.
 He turned to Mrs. Wilkins and told
 her to take the papers in the case, get
 another lawyer or conduct the case
 herself. Judge Doran suggested that
 Mir Agard stick and try the case to
 the end. At this point the court ad-
 journed.
 When court reassembIed Wednesday morning Mir. Agard's request that the jury retire was granted. He then
 stated in open court that he had asked
 for permission to withdraw from the case for the reasons given in private to Judge Doran the day before. Since then he had consulted the law and learned that he could withdraw with the permission of the court, and he asked that such permission be granted, Judge Doran said he was passive and would not decide the matter of withdrawal. |'- MT. Agard said he did not know whether that meant consent or not.
 The court said he could consider that as consent or otherwise, and that the only course for the court to take was to be passive. To this MT. Agafd re- piled that he would stay in the case, as Mrs. Wilkins had not secured other 1 counsel as he had suggested Judge. Doran said he could not pass this case at this stage and that the court and jury were not to blame for existing conditions. The jury was called in and the trial proceeded
 Harry B. Wilkins, husband of de- 1 fendant, testified that in 1914 he lived on a farm in Charlsstown, but had $ nothing to do with the conduct of the farm, and that Mrs. Wilkins transact
 ed all the business When separation came Mrs. Wilkins took all the stock
 and farming utensils, and that he did
 not get any of the proceeds. He said
 he had sold a few chairs and bed to S MT. Coughlin, but sold no stock or 4 farm appliances He said he never received a bill from Mir. Kelley and
 did no h"eiress with him except on
 one occasion, when he had horse shod, | while Mrs Wilkins was away, and e raid for .ha work at the time He g testified that he posted his wife by T newspaper advertisement in 1915.
 This closed the testimony and Attor- = rey Agard addressed the jury. He said V he found himself in a position he had , never been in before and that earlier t il the morning he did not intend to '' talk to the jury. He said the case , had been turned over to him in good ', faith by another lawyer, believing u there was merit in the case He SUD-
 rased Mrs. Wilkins had a valid case. ll In a conference with Mrs. Wilkins she
 said in effect that her husband had
 secured all the benefits of the farm - that he took the farm and practically Il all there was on it, and feaped the
 profits, leaving her only horse and r. wagon. MT. Agard said that at the j. time he believed the woman told the = truth. She declared the bill in ques-
 tion was not her bill. but her hus- Il bands
 If the statement was made in the T. mistaken belief that she was right > there might be room for consideration But the statements of witnesses, the -L introduction of letters she had writer 's Kelley, showed that the woman did
 not state facts to her attorney, as they
 showed she did have farm property
 and offered same in payment of the
 bill which she claimed now was not ;s her bill. On the witness stand she - ratified the letters and the statement 'F of Kelley. MT. Agard said he could
 not credit her statement after tha1
 and was satisfied that his client haG er wilfully lied or had a lack of memory y as to the true state of affairs in hel r. buSlneSS with Kelley.
 Mrs. Wilkins, no doubt, has beer 10 troubled over family affairs, worked as hard, and may have failed in he sd mental powers. Something must havt sG happened as she was not in position n to tell the truth to the jury. He neve
 knew until Tuesday afternoon tha 70 Mrs Wilkins had told the court ant II counsel anything that was not true 1- Under the circumstances he could SCI ed no reason why the jury should no rn return a verdict for MT. Kelley.
 MT. Dunn in his closing argumen tv for plaintiff made no reference to tht n. position taken by counsel for defend
 ant, nor did Judge Doran in his charg
 to the jury.
 A After being in the jury room just 2 Nno N minutes, the jury returned verdic i o1 in favor of Kelley and that he receve oi $9850, the full amount of his claim !, Court was then adjourned to Thurs
 day morning.
 .i- Myrtle BTven, 31, daughter of tn
 late Joseph Biven, committed suicid
 about midnight Tuesday and her bod
 was found at 10 o'clock Wednesda morning in an outhouse on the prem Y. ises occupied by her brother Charle