Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1920-05-04

often at the Duncan house, and had
| seen washings on the line there She
testified that Mr.. Duncan was
feeble and used to go around with a
cane in the house.
Attorney harrington read the dep
osition Of John T. Moulton Of Zeph-
VI Hills, Fla, who was nurse and
| lived at the Duncan home in the
spring Of 1917. He had testified that
Mr.. Duncan was feeble and needed
| much attention. Mrs. Lena Duncan
had assisted him in this work and
did the washings. He had heard
Mr.. Duncan say Lena Duncan should
have her pay for her work
Mrs. Lena Cony Duncan the plain
tiff, the daughter in-law Of James
Duncan, deceased, testified that they
took possession of the farm Nov. 1,
1910. Her husband died in 1914. She
| testified as to the feeble condition
of James Duncan and the work she
did in caring for him from October
| 1914 to 1916. She testified that it
| was her endeavor in making up the
bill to make it as fair as possible,
periods. James Duncan had told
her that she did more for him than
| his son and daughter and that she
| should have her pay for it, accord
ing to her testimony. An arrange
! ment was made at the Office of At
torney harrington that Mr.. Duncan
| should cancel all previous interest
and would credit $275 a year for
board, and Mrs. Duncan was to pay
| the balance of $50 per year to pre-
vent foreclosure. All the time she
| was rendering services for which she
| expected pay. Lawyer Holway had
told her that the work must have
been hard and regarding the bill had
said she ought to have the pay, the
plaintiff testified.
Cross-examined, she testified that
/, when she entered into the agree
ment with James Duncan, ST., she
was being paid only for his board.
not for her care in nursing, mend
| ing, washing, etc. The bill she made
out started with the date of that
| agreement. She paid Mr.. Duncan
$50 year up to 1917 and at that
J time he owed her $495. Her bill was
not made out in due form until she
found they were not to take anything
| under the will.
Upon redirect examination, she tes-
titled she was not Influenced in the
least about making her bill by the
] Will of James Duncan. And she said
on recross examination. that all her
husband had paid was $500 on the
principal and six months interest and
that in October 1914 when the agree
ment was made there was three and
a half years interest due on the
place.
| Ihe defense in the action as out
hned by Attorney Maher contends
that there is nothing due Mrs. Dun
can unless it is s2S for the board Of
the nurse. and that James Duncan.
ST., had entered into the agreement
in good faith and that in return for
the financial allowances he made. he
was to be given home and cared
for at the home of Mrs Lena Duncan.
| Judge of Probate Harold F.. Cook
was called as the first witness for the
defense and testified that the will of
! Alexander Duncan showed real es-f
tate of $4,000, goods and chattels of
si.6H.l0, rights and credits of $2.764.-
st. The amount of the widows al.
lowance was $4,442.90. a claim was
iiied by James Duncan. Judge Cook
also read the will of James Duncan.
Clerk of Courts Charles w. Jones
testified as to certain papers that had
been filed
Melvin S. Holway, executor of the
estate of James Duncan and attor-
ney for Mr.. Duncan. prior to his
death, and Mr.. Duncan had spoken
to him regarding a letter by which
it would be necessary to foreclose the
mortgage by James Duncan unless A
suitable adjustment was made. In
october 1917, he had a conference
with Attorney harrington and ,Irs.
| duncan. AT the first conference
there were no reservations, and at
time of the negotiation he had heard
or no extra charges. At that confer
| ence matters were settled between
James Duncan and Mrs Lena Dun
can. James Duncan had given her
j written release from past interest.
and she was to give him board and
care and pay him $50 a year. And
James Duncan agreed not to fore
close. AS the result of the confer
once receipt was given by James
Duncan. Witness testified he had
drafted the will Of James Dunca, for
him. By the terms of the will the
property was left to Mr.. Duncon's
son. James, and daughter, Mrs. Mary
b. Lowell. Witness testified that no
might have told Mrs. Duncan sh.
should be paid for the work she ac-
tually did.
With this testimony the case was
closed and written arguments are to
be filed by the attorneys on or before
May 10.
At the close Of the case the AnriI
term Of the superior court was finally
adjourned
| The Standard Bearers will meet
L