The plantiff introduced a witness who that the
defendent told him after the trusts was made that
he had no deed for the land. This testimony was under
suspicious circumstances. At the former trial, this
testamony was shown to be inconsistent with
that of the defendants's witness to the deed, who
had proved that there was a deed and he the witness
had witnessed it. This witness of the plaintiff
now in view to do away that inconsistency, said
that some time after the trusts [inserted: were] made, the
defendant told him he had no deed after the
trusts were made. He did not mend it.
The plantiff proved by most respectable testamony
that the day before the trial, the plaintiff told
him, that for $20 he could get a witness to
put him (plaintiff) in possession of the land
and that witness was the suspicious one
to who had testified. Here was bribery and prejury
by the plaintiff and his witness. This about
the amount of testimony on both sides.
The jury, strange to see, being 8 for the defend-
ant, 4 for the plaintiff.
Tues 3 I did nothing but gun it a little and
stay down stairs.
Wed 4th Fine weather to day, though the earth
is very sloppy. I took fine exercise with my gun
in the woods shotting.
The Winter is gone the Spring is come, though
there are vestiges of Winter. This month, March,
is alternatively mild and tempestuous - the lion
in storms, the lamb in mildness whenever
it be so. I seem to have lost the right spirit
of study and improvement. Mental pleasure
flavors not my sentiments as of yore. The reason
is, I have had so little to do as to be discouraged.
What we indulge as out greatest pleasure is often our
Notes and Questions
Nobody has written a note for this page yet
Please sign in to write a note for this page