The daily monitor leader., 1945-12-13
Farm
CONTINUED from Page 0ns)

were unknown to- him because
he could not read;
Later he signed q mortgage
on the property benefiting hi'
grandson, q document which
Ellsworth said he thought 1t wa,
a note for the purchase of cows;
After obtaining possession oi
the farm and mortgagins it. the
grandson allegedly left the
blind man ito the mercy of cir.
cumstances without food or wat
er to survive the rigors Of win
ter;
Only through friendship Of q
neighbor, the allegation claimed
was the elderly man provided
with food and water.
Two years later, and still liv.
ing alone, the blind farmer "suf-
fered q calamity, the court was
informed. "A fire started in his
home and he was barely able to
reach the door and safety. He
lay outside and almost perish
ed in the bitter cold" until pas
sersby came to his rescue.
He was taken to the county
farm which was his abode until
his son John, Detroit, Gather Of
the grandson) recently rescued
him and took him into his
home.
The farm and property he has
lost is estimated by the plain
tiff. as being worth $4,000.
In addition, testimony in the
suit has also touched on the
grandfather's cash estate and
bank holdings Of the past de-
cade.
For gravel deposits on his
farm he had received about $780,
900 from the st. Clair County
Road Commission since 1887.
Testimony of the grandson in
court Tuesday indicated that he
obtained the mortgage on the
farm because cash was needed
for operation and equipment.
All allegations of the elderly
plaintiff were denied in the an
swer filed by the grandson's at
torneys, Neale and Hirt. Mount
Clemens, and on the witness
stand Tuesday, the younger
Hawkins, who is about 26 years
old, said that at the time Of the
original transactions his grand
father had sufficient eyesight to
read documents and sign checks.
(The plaintiff has alleged that
his blindness dates back to
1898, and the deed Of the house
to his grandson and the latter's
acquisition Of q mortgage on II
took place in 1929
The grandson's defense to his
grandparents suit claims that
Stanley and the late Mrs. Flor.
ence Hawkins (his deceased
wife) left the candy and tobac-
co business he was engaged In
in 1912 and went to live with the
Richmond farmer in order tc
care for him and help him. He
said that his grandfather had
persuaded" him to do this.
The conveyance of the farm
property to the grandson, the
latter testified was the grand
fathers own proposal, and
it was properly signed over in
an attorneys office. Stanley
Hawkins testified that his
grandfather described what he
wanted done and instructed the
attorney to prepare the convey
ance.
On the witness stand, Stanley
Hawkins denied taking checks
received from st. Clair County
for gravel, as the grandparent
had alleged. He admitted ac-
curing the mortgage on the
property for the purpose of max
ing q final payment on the
house his grandfather had built
for him, and to purchase farm
equipment.
The younger Hawkins said he
moved from the farm In April
1943, after his wife had died.
because he was left with two
minor children to care for.
The grandfather's complaint
to the court described how two
successive tenant farmers -
who paid the grandson for their
tenancy - had abruptly left him
Ito the mercy of circumstances" +,
which ended with his narrow e.
cape in the fire which threaten
cd the house.
In connection with the period
after he himself had left the
srandfather's farm, the grand
son alleges that the plaintiff sold
his (the grandson's) nine cows,
three heifers, 4 thoroughbred
bull and various farm equipment
worth nearly $1,000.
The grandson said that %
soon a the township supervisor
notified him his grandfather was
at the county farm he made ar
rangements to provide the ex.
penses. since he felt that under
all the circumstances 1t was the