Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1919-03-11
SUPREME COURT
Case of Arnold vs.. City
Of Augusta
A Action for Money Had and Re-
ee'vsd, Taken Up at the Menday
Sessien-restimony All Put in
During the Oay-is the Last Case
For Jury Trial

Inc supreme court was OCCUPIED
at the Monday session with its last
case Tor Jury trial this term, that of
Greenwood c. Arnold of Augusta VS..
the City of Augusta. i municipal cor
poration. This was an action for
money had and received. the plain
TIT Claiming the sum Of 5000 and il
terest, which sum Of 5000 he had
paid TO the city Of Augusta for a land
Title and ds he claims had received
no title TO the land. All the evidence
IN the case was put in during the
day Ex-County Attorney William H.
Fish"r appeared as attorney for the
plaintiff and City Solicitor VI. E.
5awteile appeared TOR the city Of
augusta
The first witness in the case was
the plaintiff, Greenwood C. Arnold Of
Augusta. who testified that he knew
Of certain lot of land in the vicinity
Of the Moose yard and on March 3,
1919. he went to the city treasurer
Niles L. Perkins, to see him about
buying the land. He had asked Mr.
Perkins If the land was for sale and
AIr. Perkins had said that it was He
| had asked Mr.. Perkins what the land
was worth and Mr.. Perkins had said
| that A man had left a check for 1850
for it. MIR. Arnold had replied that
he thought the land ought to be
/ worth more than that and that he
would give 500 for it, He had left
$500 with Mr. Perkins for the land.
( Mr.. Perkins gave him receipt for
the money and later Mr.. Perkins had
told him that the city council Of Au-
gusta had voted to let him have the
land for $500. The deed was given
To Mr.. Arnold. made out to Mr.. Ar
mold and William Y. Ballard Of -Au-
gusta. Mr. Ballard having told Mr.
Arnold that he would like TO go in
with him in euying the land. Mr.. Bal
lard had later cleared up some BUSH
es On the land. but was stopped Mr.
Arnold had gone to see City Treas
urer Perkins. who replied that the
. city would fight for it. When Mr.
Arnold found there was an existing
heir he notified Mr.. Perkins. Plaintiff
had paid taxes on the land 70 the
city after he had bought the land.
Plaintiff identified the deed he re-
ceived from the city for the land.
the deed being offered III evidence.
He had not been Informed by the city
treasurer that the city had no title
tto the land. either at the time ne
/ had paid for the land or at any other
. time Nothing had been said to him
to the effect that he was not buying
the land. Plaintiff testified that he is
II years Of age.
Upon cross examination w. Ar
mold testified that his knowledge that
he derived no title to the premises
came from a letter from an attor-
new. After he mad received the let
tar he had never attem pied to cur
lumber from the land. At the time
RE had received the deed Mr.. Mclean
hud not told him that in his opinion
the title to the land was worthless.
according to the testimony OF MI
Arnold. He testified that he did not
know the difference between a quit
claim deed and Il warranty decd but
he knew his iced was quit claim
deed. M. Perkins didn't tell him that
the only title the city had 10 the land
was BY virtAe OF tax deeds. but Mr.
Arnold supposed its title had been
obtained through unpaid taxes
Plaintiff upon redirect examination
said that he knew nothing about the
crys title TO the land. Il pom re-crcsS
examination he said he supposed the
city owned the land. He did nor
know how nucl lumber there was on
the land although Mt Ballard had
said it would be 4 good buy at S2oo.
Upon re direct examination plaintiff
said the city OF Augusta mad never
offered to pay him the S-Vo.
It was admitted that Register Of
Deeds John NJ. Eastman would tesii-
fv that he had examined the RECORDS
in the registry of deeds and found no
CONVEYANCE from E. w. Whitehouse
to the City Of Augusta or from any
one relative to the property described
except the tax deed of Margaret
Doyle to the city Of Augusta. dated
Dec y. 1894, which deed describes
the property as North half of land
near the Sidney line
City Treasurer and Collector Wilber-
:. Wilson testified that he had exam
med the books of the city treasurer to
ascertain the taxes Assessed by The CITY
OF Augusta against the piece Ut land
and the tax value in 1872 was Sc The
aggregate taxes due the city on the
land was sS6 50 according to his record.
The books showed that the money had
been paid by Arnold TO the city treas
urer He testified upon cross-examina-
ton that over all those years from 1853
to 1872. except four. the land was SOLD
over and over for the non payment Of
taxes and was bid in by the city and
deeds were issued
The vote of the city council regard
ing the matter was introduced as evil
dcnce in the case.
Defense in Case
The defense in the action vas IN
brief that the city did not guarantee
the title Of the land. but gave the title
which it had to the land. and defense
also claimed that no representa- tons
about the land had been made t. Mr..
Arnold and Mr.. Ballard by the city
treasurer.
Maiof Niles l. Perkins testified that
in 1912 he was city treasurer and col
iector of Augusta. When Mr.. Ballar /
and Mr. Arnold had called upon hin,
r-gariing the land he had made no
representations about the property AM
he had made no representation regard
ing the city standing behind the prop
erty title The land was 10 DE sold -
the highest bidder
Upon cross-examnation witness SAID
-, sf1l