Witnesses called by Johnson, Chadwick, and Sherman generally support the Johnson claim: early occupancy, improvements, Locke’s acknowledgments, tax/payment records, Fonner’s notice, and the refusal to leave the twelve acres.
Central plaintiff and claimant. He testifies to the Locke bargain, payments, possession, improvements, the Payne/Judd episodes, taxes, share-working, and his denial that he knowingly surrendered the twelve acres.
folios 137–148, 399–406, 418–435
Co-plaintiff, neighbor, and later Johnson’s assignee. He gives broad testimony on the Haines survey, fences, house and barn, Johnson’s labor, Locke’s admissions, and Fonner’s notice.
folios 114–131, 361–370Original co-plaintiff tied to the 1869 confrontation with Fonner. His testimony helps explain the trespass-suit trigger and Chadwick/Sherman’s role in defending Johnson’s claim.
folios 131–137, 355–358, 390Town clerk/official witness who produced tax rolls and also gives local recollection. The tax evidence repeatedly assessed Johnson on Lot 10, twelve acres.
folios 112–114, 317–320, 329–332The strongest witness to the $96 down payment. He says Johnson poured hard money on his table, Keith counted it, wrote the receipt, and Locke signed.
folios 89–93, 334–338Longtime North Tonawanda resident. He says he had known Johnson since 1835 and remembers Locke treating Johnson as a property-holding voter who owned a farm.
folios 98–99, 349–355Key notice witness. He says Fonner was told the land belonged to Jack, and he preserves the German-language exchange in which Hannah said she would not go off the land.
folios 341–348
John’s wife and a crucial household witness. She remembers the $96 specie, describes the land and home, denies that they agreed to leave, and says—in German—that she would not get off because it was her place.
folios 385–389, 397–399Building/value witness. He helps define the Johnson home as rough and old but still a real farmstead with a house, barn, fences, and value.
folios 390–397
Neighbor/local resident. She places the Johnsons on the tract early, describes the swampy/log-covered condition and Johnson’s clearing and fruit planting, and says Locke repeatedly acknowledged that Johnson had paid and should receive a deed.
folios 100–104, 370–371Boundary/fence witness and one of the strongest Locke-admission witnesses. He says Locke identified “Jack’s corners,” said Johnson had bought and paid for the place, and even said Locke owed Johnson two or three hundred dollars.
folios 104–109, 313Plaintiff-side witness. Her testimony is part of the later plaintiff proof on occupancy, statements, or local recollection.
folios 406–411Plaintiff-side local witness. His testimony belongs to the supporting cluster on Johnson’s occupancy, local reputation of ownership, and the circumstances around the dispute.
folios 413–417Plaintiff-side local witness. His testimony supplements the local-knowledge and possession evidence around Johnson’s claim.
folios 338–340, 371–372Surveyor. He laid out the relevant Lot 10 parcels for Locke and fixes the twelve-acre description: ten chains wide by about twelve chains forty links deep.
folios 86–89, 94Keith-family witness connected with the payment/receipt setting. Her testimony is supporting context for the $96 transaction.
folios 375–378Plaintiff-side witness to Locke’s statements and local knowledge. His testimony helps show Locke acknowledged Johnson’s purchase/claim before the later estate fight.
folios 95–98Plaintiff-side witness. His testimony is part of the later supporting evidence around Johnson’s claim and local knowledge.
folios 358–361Building/value witness for the Johnson side. He describes a rough but real framed house and barn and gives values higher than the defense’s “mere shanty” framing.
folios 379–382Plaintiff-side local witness. His testimony contributes to the neighborhood proof that Johnson occupied, used, or claimed the twelve-acre premises.
folios 315–317Plaintiff-side local witness. He appears in the supporting evidence about Johnson’s occupancy, improvements, or the community’s understanding of the tract.
folios 332–334Longtime Wheatfield resident. He places Johnson on or near the tract early and supports the plaintiff chronology of possession.
folios 110–112Plaintiff-side local witness. His testimony is part of the supporting proof of Johnson’s possession, use, or reputation of ownership.
folios 313–315Plaintiffs’ attorney and procedural witness. His appearances concern papers, affidavits, and litigation mechanics rather than the original 1849 bargain itself.
folios 311–312Witness connecting Johnson to the Peters/Evans household history. His testimony is useful for Johnson’s earlier life and rebuts the idea that Johnson was actually living away from the disputed land during the key period.
folios 435–436Plaintiff-side witness from the Sweeney/local cluster. His testimony adds local context to the possession and claim evidence.
folios 321–322Plaintiff-side witness. His testimony contributes to local support for Johnson’s possession or claim.
folios 412–413Plaintiff-side Warren witness. His testimony appears around taxes/local official knowledge and helps support Johnson’s public, recorded connection to the land.
folios 382–383Share-work witness. He worked the twelve acres on shares because Johnson had no team, supporting Johnson’s control despite lack of draft power.
folios 378–379Plaintiff-side witness listed at a single folio. His testimony appears in the supporting local-evidence cluster.
folios 340Plaintiff-side local witness. His short testimony adds to the neighborhood recollection evidence.
folios 353Carpenter/joiner and plaintiff witness. He says Locke told him that Johnson owned twelve acres and had paid for it.
folios 109Witnesses called by Fonner and the Locke-heir side generally support the defense theory: a later move-in date, a higher purchase price, nonpayment, the 1863 one-acre settlement or lease, Fonner’s purchase, and attacks on Johnson’s continuous possession.
Estate actor/administrator figure after Locke’s death. His testimony and conduct are central to the one-acre theory, the fencing-down episode, and the estate’s control of the farm.
folios 217–237, 322–327, 437–440Defendant/appellant and purchaser from the Locke heirs. He claims Johnson occupied only a one-acre shanty patch and had acknowledged that Locke took the land back.
folios 148–161, 290–301Husband of Miriam Ransom and defense witness. He supports the Locke-family version that Johnson had not completed payment and accepted limited occupancy.
folios 256–271, 285–287Attorney present in the 1863 Judd-office settlement episode. He supports the defense version that Johnson settled/accepted limited rights, while also showing Johnson may not have received real legal advice.
folios 194–210Son of Lewis S. Payne and central witness to the 1863 settlement story. He says Johnson brought an account, calculated with Eggert/Judd/Payne, received about $10, and accepted a one-acre lease.
folios 174–190Locke-family insider whose written conditional deposition was read by stipulation rather than live testimony before Sprague. Hill describes Payne, the visit to Johnson’s house, and the Judd-office settlement; his deposition is useful but slippery on money, papers, and authority.
deposition scan pages 136–144Lawyer/scrivener in the 1863 office meeting. His papers and recollection are central to the defense’s supposed settlement/lease theory; Johnson says Judd had his papers and the process was coercive/confusing.
folios 247–256, 372–375Locke daughter/heir and defense witness. Her testimony supports the idea that Johnson once bargained for the land but failed to pay; Hannah disputes the Ransom visit story.
folios 273–277, 279–285Defense witness tied to the Ernstein/Winter prior residence story. Her testimony bears on Johnson’s move from the earlier place to Lot 10.
folios 244–247, 278Defense witness behind the higher-price / “five-franc pieces” version. His account conflicts with the Keith $96 receipt story and was not adopted by the referee.
folios 190–194Tenant under Payne after Locke’s death. He says he occupied/worked the farm except for about the one-acre place Johnson had, which supports the defense’s one-acre theory.
folios 210–213Defense witness on chronology and possession. He helps the defense argue Johnson did not enter early enough for twenty-year adverse possession and did not hold the whole tract continuously.
folios 287–290Defense witness whose facts partly help Johnson. He describes plowing/dragging while Johnson sowed, harvested, and took the largest crop share, showing share-working rather than simple surrender.
folios 214–217Defense witness in the Rumpbold/Rumbold group. Her testimony bears on Johnson’s earlier residence, chronology, and movement to Lot 10.
folios 241–244Defense witness on the earlier residence/timing issue. He says he moved into the house Johnson left in May 1850, supporting a later Lot 10 move-in date but also confirming the Winter/Hook prior-land chain.
folios 170–172Defense witness. His testimony supports the defense narrative that Johnson had limited rights or made admissions inconsistent with full ownership.
folios 308–310Present with Fonner during the April 1869 entry/cutting/ditch episode. His testimony relates to the immediate trespass-suit trigger.
folios 161–163Locke family/in-law defendant witness. His testimony concerns the heirs’ title position and the family-side version of Johnson’s claim.
folios 172–174Defense witness in the Ransom/Locke family cluster. His testimony supports the defense’s account of admissions, family knowledge, or title.
folios 271–273Defense witness. His testimony belongs to the defense-side local/credibility cluster.
folios 302–303, 307Defense witness in the Rumpbold/Rumbold group. He supports the defense chronology and prior-residence story.
folios 238–240Important defense witness on Johnson’s earlier Lot 19 interest and the Francis Winter/Hook chain. He helps reconstruct how Johnson got the $96 but also pushes a later Lot 10 move-in date.
folios 168–170Defense witness. His testimony is part of the defense-side proof challenging Johnson’s possession or plaintiff witness credibility.
folios 328–329Defense witness. His testimony contributes local knowledge on possession, boundaries, or timing.
folios 237–238Defense witness connected to tax/contact episodes. His testimony is relevant to Johnson’s tax payments and interactions around local obligations.
folios 383–384Defense witness. His testimony supports the defense’s local/credibility proof.
folios 305–306Defense witness. His testimony belongs to the impeachment/credibility and local-knowledge portion of the defense case.
folios 304Defense witness in the local/credibility cluster. His testimony supports the defense effort to limit or challenge plaintiff witnesses.
folios 310Defense witness. His testimony appears late and belongs to the impeachment/defense support cluster.
folios 437Defense witness. His short testimony is part of the local/credibility cluster.
folios 306Defense witness. His testimony is part of the effort to answer or limit plaintiff-side local proof.
folios 320