New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-03-15
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SUPERIOR CoURT-TrIIL Turbines iG-Bss,ss
Justice GAVIN

SUPERIOR ooURT-TrIAl rs.r-MAacs it-B.ssrs
Justice GAVIN
GIrTs or LAND FROM A HUSBAND TO MS WYE
Zachary Peek. Assignee Of Wn- IL. Brown ass Elm. ..
Brown.
This ia An action brop yht by the Assignee OF Nj.
VIM H. Brown deceived slins; bis widow 70 e.t the nus
Of sae lseailns % Pese Of property on Dry Doek s.
I've It, gwen TO her oy Did In Jay ,ss by Der nas
band The ses up ths IN o. sale and ~o demuree
by the psatf thc ground hat deed rom hs,osnd e
from Special Term be sFisi BY Juy IN tas Court %
issues Of fsei. .
made July lss9 ha IA 1851 the deceased made 80
assignment o. al his property, AMI that me Ssn--s tr
all DISCHARGED that ne slo'einensy IN ses nsas
another Assignment the paina for me oencn o. ere d"f~
A. died dava after executing ths: Assignment
The deceased was snipe1des doins very sI'enn,s
business and stated by Of The witnesses 20 o wns
over hss million Ii claimed BY the dsfendsni mat
Of the giie 1t was out TAR pro'son ior he| ~
such other property had been given h-t that m. dee
though only expressing the nominal L'ion o. 90
that OF ard Affection m ra ny maze IN eohsi
Of srIesf Q pDsnSpsy md y her re~ssins he
dover rsht. her popory That she bad aten ,as
held possession q the pr1'rty i0'1 - ~ "a
he te.thea to conversation with the painful IN ~hieh
reoue,e her allow hin to el the property VITA tr ~
yAfd adjoining could Be lei in that way 70 peter a'
a. Nh Ia he would ray her her prcportionate share OF the
fh- plaintiff testified that be did not remember an, ~
The pai claimed tbs, the deco directly nom hu.esnd
wife Invalid gude the Ao OF 1879 that the ueoss''s
defendant
That though the decea.ed doing large business. be ws
o
sderaoas invalid AMI denied that the defendant hse
possession Of the premises Under tnis case isass
were framed on the following points;
l. Was VIM. H. Brown possessed Of the properly PRIOR
October. 1859 .x.
Did be a. that time convey to the plaintiff
trust IA
Whether the plaintiff hss since been In possession Of hs
pren.esi The an is substantially the ssme.
Whether dat. Of the Conveyance to the deiendns
the decea.ed possessed q properly IN excess o. MS ~
aud liabilities snd If 80. what was tha; efcessf
Whether there agreement be "een tue oec~s~s
and defendant pursuance Of which the deed wis INSIDE
81 la.l Iva. ma cnnsidgralOn
b. Der Of her dowe Or ~ whether FOR any pecunsJ
consideration aud what and s whether Was not .'o nsas
In confederation Of love and sfecton' -,
TO- behe the defendant entered into possession ~ nf
whole any part Of he premises. and II so what Is 5i
an whether had the reuts and profits Of ~ ~.
whether the BY of settlement and ~
whether go reasonable provision for her IN ieiex
ence TO her husbands and Liabilities or ~ waethfs
band. pecuuiary condition any time between the deed
her aud the general ass gument TO the plaintiff -,
question raised in the OF the tina wne'ns
under 1893 code the delendent could testify on her o~s
behalf conversations with her deceased husband ne %
ng the plaintiff assgnor The Court ruled cut a, such con-
yersons except where made in presence OF third party
then that the third party present on these ocos
sons dead and , objection rss~d anew Ihe oouh
ugh doubtful the point admitted the evidence M.
To the hst question the jury answered thst Mr. Brown %
not the premises after July H. l8'y, TO toe eeona
No - thrd tina, plaintiff !. In possession oss
has been all times since October 1872, 70 tnS iS~E
they answer Yes" to the hth they answered ies 10
excess of 100000 to the sixth. ies TO We seven
h, there Is no proof 70 the eighth Yes for arresr, OF het
pecuuisry and other matters to the ninth' tes 70 w
tenth yes" the eleventh thu, defendant received vn s
.ub.equent the death Of her husband 70 she
Yea 10 the thirteenth they answered NO. ana 70 'ns
foue.uth they could tell These answers are suostsh
ally in favor Of the defendAnt ,si,
Mr. Da Costa for plaintiff; MI Mathews LOT ueienuN4~