The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1870-10-25
Supreme Court-HnRhes against Hcnth-A
Daughter against her Mother.

Daughter against her Mother.
The firm Of Heath 4 Hughes, brokers, was
quite recently wei known in wall street They
met with heavy losses failed, and finally went
through bankruptcy.
These nsmes-reyersed In order-now appear in
Court as parties to a suit in equity But IT is the
wives Of the two husbands who we're partners who
are now engaged in litigation II is all about the
title to a house on Madison avenue. Mrs. Hughes
is the daughter OF Mrs. Heath, and the daughter
brings this action against her mother to compel her
TO convey this valuable house to the daughter.
The history OF the case is as follows:
In 1868 Thomas W. Is. hughes conveyed the house
10 Mrs Mary N. Heath, the consideration stated In
the deed being thrty.two thousand Eve hundred
dollars. Mrs. Hughes and her husband now
say that the object OF this conveyance was to
pass the title 10 Mrs. Hughes through Mrs. Heath,
and that Mrs. Heath was Immediately to
execute a deed to Mrs. Hughes; whereas, Mrs.
Heath and her husband, DR.. Heath, say at the time
OF the conveyance Mr. Hughes was largely indebted
to Mrs Heath, and the house was conveyed to her
in fee simple by absolute deed in payment OF that
Indebtedness. The prominence and so csl standing
of the parties give unusual interest TO the case.
The action was expected on for trial before Judge
Barnard on Friday last when W. o. Bartlett, ESQ.,,
who had Just been retail ed as counsel for the de-
reading the papers. and after conversing with his
clients. he discovered that the attorney who was
employed to draw the answer, and who was now
| absent from the country, had misapprehended the
| true nature Of the defence.
| Ira aier ESQ., for the plaintiff strenuously OPP
posed this motion. Judge Barnard granted an order
| to show cause why the PROPOSED amendment should
not be SLOWED, returnabe fore Judge Cardozo, at
| Chambers on SATURDAY mo ing.
! At the appointed hor tIe PARTIES with their 70.
| s7cc,i'c counsel GpreM-I in Judge Clfdozos
Court
Mr.; shafer spoke with his characteristic iervor
and ability. and warming up with his subject turned
| IT, Dr. Heath and denounced him In such stron 7
| arms that ine mild manucrrd bat firm and decided
duoge rchuGcd lin, and requested lin to avoid the
use NJ such cpithcts In arguing before him hereafter
Fir. Shaier bowed courtcously to the correction Of
| the Court, but insisted that the amendment ought
not to be allowed, aud cited case IN 10Th Abbott
| In support Of his position.
Mr.. Bartlett, in recly, said he did not think the
| case was here for trial. but merely to determine
| whether the defendant should have trial OF her
case rs really exists. and to interrose her true de-
lnce or not and qn9,ed the GLOWING Language O.
~ 10: IL regard It us very much matter OF course
to allow any party to share his own pleading 70 spi;
himself and for that purpose TO permit him, .; any
time before trial. % amend his plealings 80
~ to present his own views Of tie question:. TO be
Here" said Mr.. Bartlett, us an estimsbis and
| irreprcachable lady-a mother and "A grandmother
| holding hoDS unier an absolute deed, in fee sim
| ed; ana now comes forward this young
msn, bankrup,ed by hi. reckless spec
house under an alleged verbal agreement, which DIR
| and Mr.. Heath utterly DENY. To lay the very foam
| daton Of his suit lac mas to bscken the blood that
runs In The veins Of his )wn wife that ran IN the
| veins OF his Guild that Is dead that runs
| IN the veins OF bis Guild that Is living
| and that most run In the veins Of any other chill
| tren hereafter To be born unto him. The Question
before your Honor whether this lady Is to be strip
| ucd Of her property without so much as an opportu
nity to intorpose her real and true defence merely
| because an attorney. now absent from the country
Happened TO misunderstood the instructions gwen {,
| Lin
Judge Cardozo took the papers, and yesterday
| morning flied his decision, accompanied by some
| cellent advice. as fOlloNsi
| Supreme Cogtt-hiry r. HygleS against Mary "
| UsIh DC. Spscidi Tenn. CirduIo, J.-ln the cas,
| in ~ Alb. the common pleas did no more than say
| that when the proposed SUI elemental answer was
mon leave In plead II would not be granted. But
an answer Is never stricken out on motion If upon
| the afidayits presented there il anything to try.
| II the falsity be obvious, then the plea will b,
| stricken out but otherwise. even " tie andlvits
strongly preponderate against the truth of the plead
ings. tne Court leaves the fact To be tried In The
| ususl and regular method aud will not dctermin,
the matter ny tile unsatisfactory method OF a trla
| upon tJprytS anidaNis.
| These remarks dispose Of the present application.
which must accordingly be granted upon payment
Of costs OF the motion.
| | may add that II this unratur litigation mus
proceed. no impediments ouglt 10 he placed in tn
way Of ascertaming the very truth OF the matter o
| whichever Of these unfortunate htgants the blow
may rest ; but may not venture to suggest tta
Affection irrespective of the question OF right ouC
to control THIS case upon both sides, and IT and ma
a Court should settle the difference between Ties
f4.F toe