Daily Kennebec journal., 1919-03-12

~0So ~ ~ uSt0 W NoSooSd VSs SbS
City Of Augusta, an Action for
Money Had and Reeeived-Tsrm Is
Finally Adjourned-Thnee Divorces
Granted
A verdict of $2s4 for the plaintiff
IN the case Of Greenwood c. Arnold
Of Augusta VS.. the City Of Augusta.
was returned by the jury at Tues
days session Of the supreme judicial
court In returning its verdict the
jury also made answer to. the follow
ing question put by City Solicitor NJ.
E. Sawtelle. attorney for the defend
ant municipal corporation: DO you
find that fraud was practised by the
City of Augusta upon Greenwood G.
Arnold in connection with the trans
action at issue IN this case:" The
jury answered this question in the
affirmative. Motion mad exceptions
taken by attorney for the defendant
were allowed and the case will go to
the law court.
The jury returned its verdict after
about half an hours deliberation up
on the case, and as this was the :ast
case up for trial the term was final
ly adjourned about O'Clock in the
afternoon. Tuesdays session was
taken up with the arguments in the
case at bar and Associate Justice
Hanson's charge to the jury, all the
testimony in the case having been
put in at Mondays session.
City Solicitor Sawtelle in his arsu-
ment in defense. brought out tire
point that the city never claimed an"
by nature of tax deeds, that the ci,S
never authorized any conveyance eX-
cept a bare release on a quit claim,
that the defendant knew that the
city had no other title than that
which might have been acquired by
nature of tax proceedings and with
that knowledge took his chances :lp-
on being able to obtain title and ac-
quire possession, and that having
made his trade with no representation
or concealment should not. in fair
ness and equity. be permitted in Of
feet to change a quit claim deed 10
y
Attorney William H. Fisher in ar
guing for the plaintiff. contended
that the plaintiff had paid money 10
the city in payment for land, that lilc
plaintiff when the city failed to 'ie-
liver a good title should have MS
money returned, that even on the
claim of defendant that plaintiff had
been told that the deed conveyed no
title the city did not act in good
faith that il did rot offer to return
the money. that the city should deal
fairly with its citizens. and that the
plaintiff should have a square deal
and have his money returned to him.
Associate Justice Hanson in his
charge to the jury spoke as follows
upon the matter Of alleged fraud in
connection with the transaction:
There is on the part Of the plain
tiff a claim Of constructive fraud.
not actual fraud. 1t is not claimed
that the city Of Augusta through It's
officers perpetrated what is known
as actual intended fraud, but il is
claimed that the circumstances AZ
tending the purchase On the part Of
the plaintiff are such that you are
entitled to infer fraud. On the other
hand. the defendants counsel urges,
and very strongly. that there is no
fraud of any kind; that there must
be fraud Of either one kind or the
nther-either actual or constructive
fer the plaintiff TO recover in this
case"
After the jury had returned its yer
dict in the case. the jurors were fia-
:.Ny excused and only routine ma :
ters were before the court until the
term was adjourned.