The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-11-07

ACTION AGAINST AN ADMINIsTRAToR-PLEAo OF LUNACY
Before nd Nelson

ACTiON AGAINST AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF LUNACY.
Before Hon Judge Nelson.
NOV b-1he .aLskama LIFE iusaranos and Trust CONF
peny Us fdon Santa .admiaistyator. This action
against the defendant, administrator of Jonathan
Hunt who was accder tally drowned his passage be-
tween New York and Mobie) to the amount Of
PENDANT Is the administrator OF Jonathan Hunt that
Hunt on the 18th june lS46, at Mobile passed to the
plaintiffs promisory note FER the of S577s payable
in twelve monthsAfter date The money It is alleged was
lent and advanced to him at his specific instance and re-
quest and laid out and for him in the purchase
Of land In Mobile The defendant contends that at the
time Of the Issuing Of the note in question Jonathan
Hunt Of unsound mind, and incapable of con tract
ing that hfs condition known to The plaintiffs and
that therefore, the Dote executed by him void Also
that the only consideration to be received by Hunt was
the of certain lands and real in the
city Of Mobile and that such conveyance was ever
executed to him by the plaintiffs during his life time
to his heirs representatives since his decease and
that fact consideration whatever ever given by
the plaintiffs for the note The defendant also contends
that the value Of the premises, II they
veyed did not exceed SEQ though the note given
for S5T78 and that the plaintiffs took unfair advan
tage 81 the mbeclity and incapacity Of Hunt in the
transaction Another ground of defence u.s. that If the
Holford and were sold for his account and that
the promrory note received by the plaintiffs for the
account and benefit Of Holford.
The Judge intimated that the defence should be ,on
fined to fraud and imposition.
The evidence so far as the case has gone was docu-
mentary. The dispositions of John Bloodgood, of Mo-
bile that he knew Jonathan Hunt for several years
Prior to 1845 he considered him of great shrewd-
nes very superior Judgment and great industry. He
was an extremely economical man in all his habits at
least the greater part Of the time he to New
York in 1898 and 1889 and lived luxurously; after
that he spent part of his time in Mobile and part in New
York. In the early part Of my acquaintance with him
he was engaged in merchandise, and occasionally ope
rated in real estate About 1882 and 1883 his principal
busncfs at the South real estate operations In which
he manifested great judgment aud shrewdness and
tnued thus for many He considered wealthy
in Mobile and for about four years President Of the
Branch Of the United States Bank. About February
ls45, raw him every day he not out of my sight
during the day and part Of the night very great
change took place in bis appearance and conduct He
showed great wdness in his business TONS aad
also in his social relations He wrote letters after letters
giving enormous orders for cotton in different sectons
he drew large drsfs for at sight, loo pieces
OF paper, On different ares. for 81 so at
sight on loose paper, on II ID. Parish of New York
Believing bm to be crazy, kept in my possession and
delivered to his agent Sidney Smith these orders for
cotten and various letters, which OF very ri H.
euous character which he gave to put in the post
eiee. lie danced and sang and tol2 me he had very
singular gift which had come to him very suddenly
The depos ons Of Mr. Blood good described several acts
Of domestic folly the part of Mr. Hunt and stated
thst on occasion. when he heard of the pecuniary
difficulty Of friend. he insisted that Mr. Bleodgood
should call on him and ascertain the amount Of his liza
bhtes; Mr. Hunt at the time. caring that he would
relieve him to The extent Of $50 eco The property dss
crbed as being conveyed to Mr. Hunt by the plaintiffs
Mr Boodgood states not in the year 1876. at
any time since, worth more than 5000. Under the
directions of the Court the jury returned verdict for
the plaintiff, 1888 "a, subject to the opinion OF the
Court