The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-10-04
THE COURTS.

| EQUlTy COuRT-JudJe Nyhe-I ester
/ day the court met at 10 o clock, and after tn,
disposal of come formal motions, which, not be
ing objected to, were allowed, and shich will b,
found at the conclusion of this report, took ~
tho issues on tho calendar, as follows:
| BIZ Patrick peely VS. John Shanahan. II
appeared In this case that in March, 1865, one
Wslch made n deed Of certain real estate to the
separate use Of bis sister, Joan Deey, free from
the control of her husband, Patrick Deely, with
right to sell, devise, or mortgage the same, by
| writing nttested by two witnesses, but directing
that in case she did not so dispose Of the estate
| during her life, It should become the property Of
her husband. Joan Dsely was seized with cholera
In October, 1855, and was soon in q collapsed
condition, when q deed conveying the estate In
question to Welch for the benefit OF hcr two in
FAINT children, and which she had previously re
quosted to be prepared, was presented and read
| to her, and she executed the same a short time
before her death, when she was physically pros
| trate and nearly specifies. Her husband now
dies bill to set aside the deed to his children
and vest the estate in him.
The case at this point turned upon the condi-
ton Of the mind Of Joan Deely at the time Of
the execution of the deed; tho testimony as to
which, both of persons familiar with the eyi.
dences Of soundness Of mind exhibited at the
time, and Of experts skilled in the characteristic
influence exercised by her disease upon the
mohta sybtuu1, was
The Court thought that this point was one
proper to be determined by the verdict of jury.
Mr.. Merrick suggested that the case also pre-.
sented another feature The deed Of trust for
tho benefit Of Joan Deely provided that the
trustee should execute deed to whomsoevor she
should designate by appointment, In writing, at
tested by two witnesses. Now II the evidence
showed that she had directed such paper to be
prepared, and 1t failed to be properly executed
hV nf har Al, 81 vat N nf anniIp
would not set aside q conveyance executed In
accordance with such appointment, at the In
stance Of q party who did not show superior
equity to the parties he sought to dispossess.
The Court did not entirely concur In this
view, but thought that the fact Of Joan Deely's
direction for the execution Of such conveyance
would also DO proper subject for the verdict Of
. jury.
1t was at first proposed to submit both ques-
tions to n jury, but upon some disagreement Of
counsel as to the form Of the issues II was
finally determined to submit but this single
issue: Was Joan Deely, at the time OF executing
tho Instrument bearing date the 29lh day Of
October, 1866, (the deed signed on her death
bed. competent to execute the same
This issue was accordingly directed to be sent
to tho Circuit Court, and the case continued.
Messrs. Fendall and Davis for the plaintiff;
Messrs. Ennis and Merrick for the defendants.
2l2. s. Earle VS.. Broake Williams. This Is a
creditors bill to charge real property, of which
the defendant Is trustee, with certain debts due
by the party making the trust deed 1t ap-
peared by the auditors report that the value OF
the property sought to be charged was far from
sufficient to pay the debts secured by the deed
OF trust, and that, in fact, no funds not already
fully covered by said deed Of trust can be real.
lied from said property.
Jackson for plaintiff; Bradley, sr., for defend.
ant.
Mr. Bradley suggested that the plaintiff made
no case, and that the bill should be dismissed,
Mr.. Jackson was not present.
The court directed that tho bill be dismissed,
1927. Barbara Vail vs.. John Wall, An &C
ton for divorce; tho bill setting forth that the
defendant had maltreated his wife, gons into
the Confederate army, contributed nothing to |
her support. committed adultery and was now
living with another woman at his restaurant on
Sixth street, near the steamboat wharf There |
was no defence, and upon the motion Of Mr., |
Thompson, solicitor divorce from the
bonds Of matrimony was granted the court no. |
marking that adultery was so easily proved now |
adays that tho result of applications for divorce
was never doubtful.
1853. Fowler VS.. Dennis. This is an action to
set aside deed Of trust made by tho defendant
for the benefit of his wife and children on the
ground Of fraud, the particulars Of which were
published In the law reports Of this journal In
August last The defendant denies fraud.
Philips for the plaintiff Lloyd for the defend
ant.
Before the conclusion of the case the court, at
y O'Clock, adjourned until this morning,