The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-03-25
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.


and Judges Thompson, Strong, and Read
Judgments in the following cases were entered;
sherman VS., Witham; Judgment atnrmed'
Opinion by Thompson, j.
Oakes vs. Dram. Decree Of O. P. reversed so
kar as II awards any portion Of the fund TO
Hunt Brothers q Blair, and the sum awarded
to them is decreed TO be paid to the attaching
creditor. The Court being equally divided in
opinion respecting the correctness OF the dis
tributton OF the remainder, is affirmed.
Opinion by Strong, J..
GIl1n 1oh1 Blodset By Gf fBf3iiton VS.. Fanny G. Van
essSsed Harry a Beggis 3Ss
syckel, Fanny H. Vansyckel, and Robert +.
Vansyckel (minorsl heirs of said decedent,
On the 18th OF March, 1858, Emmett A. Van
Richard II. Townsend certain real estate situate
in the city of Philadelphia. in trust, to pay or
said grantOr during his natural life, and, after
his decease. to and for the use of Harry b. Van
syckel, and of any issue born TO the grantor
after the execution of said indenture, with a
contingent Limitation over to his sister, Mrs.
On the same day, and as one of the moving
considerations to this conveyance, a deed of
separation was executed between the grantor
and his wife, she receiving from him certain
personal property, and releasing all claim upon
him and his real and personal estate.
9th Of september, 1853 the trustee having en-. en-
tered upon the duties of the trust Immediately
upon the execution OF the trust deed. On tue
proceedings against his wife for divorce a
vincllo nldnf'nonit, and on the:l4th of February,
1859, divorce was decreed.
Mr.. Vsanyckel married the lady who is the
defendant. as his widow, and the other defen-
of Harry E., the son by his first wife. on the
oath November, 1861 Mrs. Van Syckel filed
Townsend and his wife, and his two minor
children, to set aside the deed of trust of the
29h March, 1858, upon the allegation that at the
time of its execution he was in such a condi-
ton, physically and mentally as rendered him
utterly Incompetent either to approve or un-
derstand what he was doing.
On May II, 1861, Mrs. Fanny G. Vansyckel,
his wife, filed in the Common Pleas petition,
praying for a commission to be issued to in
quire into the habltual drunkenness of her
husband which was accordingly issued and so
proceeded in, that on June 49, S6l, the inqusi-
kHrd; which, as modified. was confirmed by the
Court on the 10th of September, and on the 7th
November, 1861, o. p. Cornman, Esq, was ap.
pointed the Committee.
The bill in equity was prosecuted by the Com
mittee, and after taking q large amount of tes-
linony on both sipes. before an examiner and
n tull hearing by the Court on the 3lst of Octo-
ber, 1862, the Court dismissed the bill.
on November %, 1866, the Committee in the
name onhiS ward, appealed from this decree to
| the Supreme Court and on February II, 1854, 1t
! was ordered that this cause be referred to the
| Hon. Garrick Mallery. to examine the evidence
and make report thereon and on April 81,
and a rule was taken to show cause why the
widow should not be substituted, which, on
taking it.
1t appears the decedent made will on the
18th OF October, 1861, constituting his wife his
eXecutrix, which was proved on May l3. 1864,
and Letters Testtmentary issued July /, in the
same year. The plaintiff commenced suit in
the Supreme Court on December 8, 1854 to Jan.
uary, 1865, mo. l29, against Mrs. Vansyckel, ,ex-
ecuIrix of e.. A. Vansyckel, deceased, and OBJ.
was entered April Is. 1866.
This judgment was for professional services
equity, to set aside and annui the deed of trust.
Under the thirty-fourth section OF the act of
| 24th of February, 1884, in order to charge the
real estate OF the decedent with the payment OF
his debts, the plaintin issued this sctre JdctaS
against the widow and the four minor heirs,
and their guardian, to show why the said judg:
ment against the executrix should not be levied
and paid out OF the real estate Of which the said
! +. A. Vansyckel died seized.
The defense on the part of the widow and
heirs did not allege that the original debt was
not due by the decedent or his estate, and the
! defendants showed the plaintiffs receipt for
| Sl0827, on account of this Judgment paid from
! Mr., Vansyckers personal property. But they
offered 10 show that the decedenG did not die
! seized of any real estate, and also offered in
! show that all the real estate OF the decedent
! had passed by the trust deed and was covered
| by its trusts and that no real estate descended
| to them as his heirs upon his death.
! The Court rejected these offers, and charged
the jury to find verdict for the plaintiff with
! interest, which they did accordingly.
! In this we can perceive error, for clearly
! the plaintiff is entitled to Judgment which
there be any. We cannot decide in this collate-
| riI way the title to real estate which one party
! claims cannot be reached by execution, and
tie other party says ii is liable to. If the real
a. tate to be levied upon is that conveyed by the
| deed Of Goth March, 1885, still the plaintiff has
! q right to try his hand upon it, although all he
! may be able to effect will be to embaTrass the
! title of the minors. Judgment affirmed.
Court OF Quarter SessiOns-Judge Brew
| ster,-PatrIck Costigan was charged with being
! drunk and disordery, and carrying concealed
deadly weapons 1t was alleged that Costigan
went into saloon at Seventh and Shtppen
Streets was drunk and unruly and pulled from
his pocket pistol, saying that he would whip
anybody in the house. Patrick showed for him.
self by number OF witnesses a previous good
! character, but offered no evidence in explana-
! tiOn OF his having with him the pistol. The
| Jury rendered verdict Of guilty. Sentenced to
| County Prison for one month.
William r. Wager was charged with the em-
bezZlement of $1,000, the property of his employer,
| +. 7. Smith, the former proprietor OF the TURF
! House. in Eighth street. Before closing this
! tavern, Mr.. Smith told Wager that no was dis
! charged, and attempted TO have settlement
| the books and superintend the business. When
! the proprietor $1,000, as Smith testified
He said he had loaned $500 TO friend but
! could recover lit any day. Up to this time he
! has not paid any of 1t. The evidence as to the
| specific charge in the bill Of indictment was
! that on q certain day the defendant said he had
! taken in fifty dollars, and accounted for only
| forty dollars. On trial. ~
Court of Common Pleas-Allison, +. j.
! The equity motion and rule list was before the
| Court,