Cooper v. Livingston-Opinion of Court. teller. Mr. Livingston stated that Mrs. Magruder had been conjuring Mr. Roberts, and that was the nature of the claim. Mr. Cooper then asked Mr. Livingston certain questions as to the nature of the claim. Mr. Livingston stated that he had traded for the note with Mrs. Magruder, and had given her for it some cow feed and a stove, and that it was some small compensation or amount, and that the note was given to Mrs. Magruder for doctoring by conjuring Mr. Roberts. Either Mr. Cooper or myself asked him if he knew what kind of services they were at the time of this trade that Mrs. Magruder had performed. Livingston said he did, and that they were for conjuring, as he had stated in his previous testimony. Livingston said that Mrs. Magruder was a fortune-teller. He said he did not give much for the note-cow feed and a stove. Witness stated as a reason why his testimony is more positive than on the former trial, that the details of that conversation were recalled by Mr. Cooper refreshing his memory with other facts of the conversation. Louisa Roberts, widow of John Roberts, testified: I was with Mr. Roberts all the time during his last illness. Doctors Wakefield, Stout and Daniels attended him during his sickness. Mrs. Magruder did not attend as a doctor, but came out of her own accord, and said she could cure him. Mrs. Magruder came out there on a visit two or three times, and staid I suppose a half an hour each time. Once she gave him a dose of spirits of turpentine and oil, which I furnished; this is all she did. She never helped to nurse or do anything else for him. She did not cure him, and he died a short time after. Mr. Roberts died the 16th February, 1877. Those visits were made about a week before his death. He had been confined to his bed so that he could not get out of his house. Previous to Christmas, 1876, we were living in Clay county, and he had been a confirmed Cooper v. Livingston-Opinion of Court. invalid, and as such was brought in a carriage to the place where he died. I am positive that from the 29th December, 1876, Mrs. Magruder did not commence to render services to my husband and continue to do so until a short time before his death. I was there all the time and know. I am positive that on that day Mrs. Magruder did not have a business interview with my husband. Mr. Roberts did not leave his house that day. C. P. Cooper testified: A short time after I entered upon my duties as executor of the estate of John Roberts, C. O. Livingston came to my office in Jacksonville and presented the note in controversy for payment. I took the note and examined it, and asked him what the consideration was for which the note was given; he answered that it was a note given by Mr. Roberts during his last illness for conjuring him to make him well. I asked him who Mrs. Magruder was; he said she was an old woman who had lived in LaVilla, and lived by conjuring and fortune telling, that she professed to be a kind of doctor and treated in that way; that she was not a regular doctor. Mr. Ledwith was pressent and at times joined in the conversation. I handed the note back to him, and refused to pay it. During the conversation I asked him what he had given for the note. He laughed and said he did not give much, or something of that sort, that he had given a little food for Mrs. Magruder's horse or cow and a stove. He mentioned no other consideration. I then remarked the fact of the suspiciousness of his giving so little for the note, and he said he had given so little because he had his doubts about the note and taken the chances of its being paid, or words to that effect. I received the whole of my information from Mr. Livingston in relation to the note, its character, the circumstances under which he obtained it and all about it as related in my testimony. He admitted to me then and there that he knew Cooper v. Livingston-Opinion of Court. at the time he traded for the note how Mrs. Magruder had gotten it, and what she had given for it as the consideration as testified to. Frederick Luders testified on the part of plaintiff that Mrs. Magruder attended Mr. Roberts several weeks, made medicine herself and brought it. One day she did not come and Roberts sent for her. She sometimes stayed with him one to two hours and sometimes three. I was there nights and sat up with him. She gave him medicines, and at times she would be alone with him in the room. Roberts would request everybody to go out but Mrs. Magruder. He would say that Mrs. Magruder wanted to be by herself with him. Never saw her practice conjuring. I was with him a good deal, for the last four or five days all the time. Don't think he was easily imposed on or had a weak mind in his last illness, and he talked sound sense. Mrs. M. attended him about three weeks, calling generally every other day, and remaining one to three hours. Mr. Roberts said the doctors never did him any good. I tried to get him to stop taking her medicine. He said he thought she had done him some good. F. F. L'Engle testified on the part of the defendant that Mr. Roberts was of a weak mind during his last illness. The plaintiff on his own behalf testified that he sold a bill of goods to Mrs. Magruder, including a buggy, harness, a lot of furniture, hay, corn, &c., to the amount of $282.05, and took this note in part payment. Mrs. Magruder came to buy some furniture and household goods in my line, and wanted to know if I would take John Robert's note for them. I told her I did not know who he was. She referred me to parties, of whom I inquired, and became satisfied that he was a responsible party and sold her the goods, and took the note in part payment. When I presented the note to Mr. Cooper for payment he said it was good for Cooper v. Livingston-Opinion of Court. nothing; he said it was gotten by conjuring. I shall al ways remember the word, for I had never heard the word before. Mr. Cooper asked me who this Mrs. Magruder was. I said I heard she was a fortune-teller and a doctor, that was all I knew about her. I then left the office and immediately commenced suit. I did not tell Mr. Cooper in presence of Ledwith that Mrs. Magruder was an old woman who lived in LaVilla, and lived by conjuring and fortune-telling, and that she professed to be a kind of a doc tor. Question Did you tell Mr. Cooper that for the note of John Roberts you had given a little food for Mrs. Magruder's horse and cow? Answer-I told him I had given her grain, hay, a new harness, a pair of boots, furniture and money. Mr. Cooper did not ask me why I had given so little for the note. I did not say I gave so little for the note because I had doubts about the note and had taken chances, nor words to that effect. The foregoing is all the material testimony bearing upon the issue. By a comparison of this testimony with that given upon the former trial by Mr. Cooper, Mr. Ledwith and the plaintiff, it will be seen that while the testimony of Ledwith and Cooper is more distinct and positive, that at the conversation between them at the time the note was presented for payment Mr. Livingston expressly said that the note was given by Mr. Roberts in his last sickness to Mrs. Magruder "for conjuring him to make him well," as stated by Mr. Cooper; and "that Mrs. Magruder had been conjuring Mr. Roberts, and that was the nature of the claim;" and "that the note was given to Mrs. Magruder for conjaring Mr. Roberts," as testified by Mr. Ledwith. Then they both testify that Livingston expressly stated that he knew at the time he traded for the note the kind of services Cooper v. Livingston-Opinion of Court. she had rendered; that it was for conjuring, as before stated. These statements of Messrs. Ledwith and Cooper as to what Livingston told them was the consideration of the note, and that he knew what the consideration was when he bought or traded for the note, are not contradicted by Mr. Livingston in his testimony on this trial. True, he says that when he presented the note to Mr. Cooper for payment the latter said "it was good for nothing; it was gotten by conjuring;" and Livingston says he had never heard the word before; and that he said to Mr. Cooper he had heard she was a fortune-teller and a doctor, and that was all he knew about her; yet he does not deny that in that conversation he said to Cooper he knew what the consideration of the note was; that it was for Mrs. Magruder's services in conjuring Mr. Roberts, and that he knew it when he traded for the note. At the former trial Mr. Livingston's testimony was plainly in contradiction of these statements of Mr. Ledwith and Mr. Cooper, and had strong influence upon the conclusions of the court. Now their testimony is strong and positive upon the point, and he does not contradict their testimony as to these admissions by him to them. Mrs. Roberts, who was not a witness at the first trial, shows that Mr. Roberts came from Clay county after Christmas, 1876, and Mrs. Magruder then called of her own accord to see Mr. Roberts and proposed to cure him. The note is dated December 29, 1876. The goods are charged by Livingston to Mrs. Magruder December 30, 1876, in payment for which she endorsed the note to him. The only conclusion as to the services rendered by Mrs. Magruder to Mr. Roberts is that she commenced her attentions a very few days, if any, before the date of the note, and continued her ministrations down to about three days prior to his |