Litigation Over A Big Lima Farm

The stahblng affray in the townKhip of Lim.a in August, 1889, ís called to mind this weck by the iiling of a bilí in the circuit court by Samuel Seney, against Mary Jane Seney and Harvey Seney, asking for the setting aside of a deed of the farm in Lima on whieh the parties have lived. One of the defendants is Seney 's wife nnd the other is the son, who was stabbed. The bill is a long and involved one but the allegations in it rnay be summarized as follows: The farm consisting of 329 acres, was purchased in for $21,825; a mortgage of $12,953 being given upon it, wliich has been reduced to $9.000. In 1884, Mrs. Seney oled a bilí askiníffor a divorce on the ground of drunkenness and eruelty. The allegations of the divorce bill are denled by Seney, but for fear that the farm iiï lts mortgaged condition mlght be lost bv litisation, he deeded the farm to liis wife subject to the original mortgage and a mortgap;o for $2,000 was giveai him by his wife. Tlie divorce suit was dropped and the personal property amounting to $2,000 turned over to Mrs. Seney. An agreeruent was ïnade tinder which Seney ment was made under which Seney and control of the iarm until the mortgages were discharged, when a deed o fone fourth of the farm wás to toe made to him. In September, 1888, an agreement was made betweenS enney, nis wife and son, under which the mortgage of $2,000 was discharge!. All ■werp to work 011 the farm until the unsecured debte of $1,200 to $1,500, the interest, and $1,00 of the principal oï the. $9,000 mortgage were paid, aJid then each was to be deeded onethird the tarín and personal propertgr subject to $8,000 mortgage. Mrs. Sency was to lic treasurer and everythiiig was in be paid by her Check on i!ii Ch 'isca bank. Dlfterenees were to be arbitrated. He claims that the wife and son combined agalnet liim and drove blm trom thf farm i'.i June 1890. The disputes were arditrated u August, 1890, the arbitratora decidthat Seney was to re: urn home mul do Üulit labor, the bOOkkeepillg was io be changed, all recelpte were to be put in the bank and drawn out ly check siRiit'd by the three and fliflerences were to be submitted to 11. i. Noyes, whose indorsement on a Check signed by any one of the three was to be suíficicinr to get the raoncy. Mr. Seney claims that x defenganta refused to regard the award or to let iiim remain at home. He usked eeveral alternatlve decrees; ïlia: deed o! 1884 !■■ +Lt aside or Hiat the discharge of the W.i mortgajro be Bet aside and the mortgage forec-losed. Au -accountinf; i- asked lor. In the meantlme Judge Kinne hagrouted a temporary Injunction remj-aluiDg any dlsposltion of the property.