The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1922-02-09

The deposition of Mrs. Ethel S. Wal
ton Abbot. of Winnette. Mont. prac-
tieing attorney in that state and the
daughter of the late S. J. Walton, of
Skowhegan, was read The principal
feature of this deposition was that
she had overheard conversation in |
the law office Of her deceased father
in which W. J. Henderson and Mr..
Holden were concerned; witness stat
ed in her deposition that she recalled
her father having asked Mr.. Holden
if he didn't know that II. J. Henderson
had given deed of hir half of the
Henderson farm to W. j. Henderson,
prior TO r. J. Henderson having given
him (Holdenl the deed and that Hol
! den had finally answered in the affirm
ative; that her father had called her
attention to the matter and asked her
to remember it. Clerk of Court Seek
ins was sworn in to Nook up records
of former case in which judgment had
been given Holden against Henderson.
Frank r. Holden, the plaintiff. oc
cupied the stand quite a portion of
the forenoon Tuesday. Under cross
examination by Attorney Hudson, Mr. I
Holden stated that he was in the Wal
! ton Law Office and recalled that Mr..
Walton asked him if when he took a
deed from II. J Henderson for a half
of the Henderson farm. he knew Joe
had given deed to john and that he
had told him he didn't know anything
about the deed. Witness stated that
he never paid any taxes on the prop
! erty in question and that he had no
income from it, but admitted that he
j had never asked for half of the in
come. He also admitted that he saw
mortgage which W. j. Henderson
had given Thomas BARLEY for money
! loaned to pay up Holden but didn',
read it, An unusual metho cd of proce
dure occurred when Attorney Hudson
, was sworn in as witness for the
plaintiff through Attorney Merrill. At
torney Merrill asked him If he had
talked with r. j Henderson and Mr..
Hudson said he had. Arguments were
begun by Attorney Hudson in the case
prior to the midday recess.
The arguments for the plaintiff were
begun by Il. f, Merrill at two O'Clock, I
I who stated that a primie-facie case
was made out by the plaintiff by pre-
senting the two deeds in the opening.
The plaintiffs attorney maintained
that the burden fell heavily upon W.
/ j. Henderson rather than upon Hol-
den relative to the title of the prop
erty; that the records in the Somer-
set Registry when searched by Mr..
Holden showed that r. j. Henderson
owned one-half of the Henderson
farm. In this way the plaintiff claims
he acquired knowledge that as he sup
posed the titled still belonged to r. J.
Henderson, The plaintif also claimed
that he had tru ted r.. j. Henderson
to the amount of 1867 which was more
than w. ] HcnderSon's Indebtedness
to him had been that the executive
notices were levied simply on all the
rights which w. j. Henderson had in
the property The plaintiff also
claimed that the first time he had
known that r. ]. Henderson had deed
ed the property of W. J. Henderson
was the day after II. j. Henderson
had decided it to him. a verdict was
returned for the defendant
ELDRIDGE BROTHERS VS. ATWOOD
Owinb to the vacancy on the panel
caused by +. c. Leavitt of Palmyra
being excused. Willis Viles of Anson
was called to sit on the second jury,
and Eldridge Brothers case against \.
d. Atwood of ST Adams, was taken
up. with W b. Pierce of Dexter for
the plaintiff and l.. l.. Walton for
the defendant This was an action of
trespass. Attorney Pierce in his open
ing claimed damages for his client
caused by the cattle of the defendant
entering the plaintiffs field. The de-
fense claimed that the damages COM
plained of occurred by reason of the
failure of the plaintiff to keep in repair
their part of the line fence. Eldridge
Bros. is corporation in Dexter which
bnys lumber and turns 1t into fin
ished product. They purchased farm
in about 1918 in St Adams upon which
there WIS growing timber. This tim
ber was cut and the cultivated land
through tenants who lived on the
farm. was kept up in good condition.
The plaintiffs contend that during
1920 the place cut about twenty tons
of hay but that last year the defend
ants cattle got onto the premises,
with results that the farm did not cut
in 1921 more than five tons of hay. Tho
farms OF tnc pldiHtln anu uelcuudHI
ioin. The plaintiff further claims that
the cattle were practically pastured
in the plaintiffs field, a part of the
season at least Fred Herrick. of Dex-
ter the general manager OF the cor
poration, was the first witness called
and said that his field looked like
pasture in some places, also that the
cattle appeared to have fed in the
orchard Witness said he didn't sec
the cattle on the property. Under
cross examination Mr.. Herrick said
that he first visited the farm Just be
fore having; that he did not repair the
fence. although he got word from Mr..
Atwood through RUmmery, who was
employed by him to do so. Witness
said that the division was never made
between the two fences. Edward Rum
merry of Dexter, who was. employed by
Eldridge Bros. and worked on the
farm. told of conditions there as he
noted them.
Almon l. Avery of St Adams, who
fo.n,orIu Iivud nn tho Eldridya proa /