Evening Republican, Volume 18, Number 281, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 November 1914 — $10,750 JUDGMENT FOR ELLEN LOPP [ARTICLE]

$10,750 JUDGMENT FOR ELLEN LOPP

Woman Who Cared For Isaac V. Speck, Wealthy Bachelor of Newton County, Gets That Sum. / The ease of Ellen Lopp against the estate of Isaac V. Speck, which began in the circuit court on Tuesday morning before a jury, has resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $10,750. A large number of witnesses were examined, .thirty for the and fifteen for the defendant. The case was concluded so far as introduction of testimony at 4 -p. m. Friday, at which time the

first agumerit was made for the plaintiff by- Mr. Isham, who was followed by Mr. Martindale jand Mr. Leopold for the defendant, Mr. Leopold being followed by Mr. Blue for the plaintiff,-who was followed by Judge Darroch for the defense, and the concluding argument by Daniel Fraser for the plaintiff. The court instructed the jury at 10 p. hi. and they reached a sealed verdict at 4 a. m. this Saturday morning. I — f The plaintiff and.’her husband lived upon the lands of Isaac V. Speck in Newton county, just west and horth of Kentland. Mr. Speck owned at the time of his death about 1,400 acres of land, sad to be one of the finest farms in Newton county. He was also a stock raiser and engaged in feeding cattle and hogs for the market. From the time the plaintiff went upon his land in 1899. to the time of Mr. Speck’s death in 1913, he was a sickly man, having some stomach trouble and heart..trouble of a serious and |cute nature. He was subject during all these years to

frequent attacks of cramping, and on such occasions it was necessary to relieve him By hot applications. These attacks occurred mostly in the night time and Mrs. Lopp was his almost constant attendant. In addition to caring for him in this manner, she also waited upon him in many other ways, such as assisting him in-putting on his coat, washing his face and ears, bathing his feet, caring for his room, doing his washing, etc. . A large number wf witnesses, mostly former employes of his or of Mr. Lopp, and who boarded at Lopp’s, testified to her care and attention of the old gentleman, and that they had frequently heard him S&y that he could not get along without her aid, and that she would bejvell paid for all she did for him. x In addition to caring for Mr. Speck, Mrs. Lopp also waited upon his old housekeeper, one Mrs. Tharp, who grew old and feeble and also required much attention. Also cooked for and washed for the men employed in working for Mrs. Speck on his farm, as well as for the men working for her husband. Mr. Speck was confined mostly in winter time to the house and was only out in warmer weather and when he was not able to come to his meals she carried his meals t< him as well as to his old housekeeper. There was but little dispute in the testimony or material points. The defense contended that she did all this work under the agreement between Mr. Speck and her husband and that her work was a part of the work to be done under that contract, but the evidence of a long list of witnesses contradicted this theory. Mr. Speck was never married, and at the time of his death left no near relatives, the only relatives being nephews and nieces, who reside in Ohio and Marshall county, Ind. Mrs. lopp under the law was not permitted to testify, for the reason that the law says it would be unfair for her to testify, or her husband, Mr. Speck being dead, and proof ipust be made by other parties. There are also other claims by the Lopps pending for trial, but a recovery by Mrs. Lopp for her services would bar any action by herself and husband for the same services, so the court instructed the jury.