The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-15

necessary. Madame Jumel had conveyed the Pr0p-
su%e II returned rom france Madame ae went
to MI. Kent and she there executed mai instru.
mens Of the property TO the enect that sne was 20
Tor his e II he survived; and at the death OF GStn
the property vas to 60 to Mary Jumel In fee. That
II made 1t pretty clear who was to be regarded as
the heir Of Madame Jumel He put 1t to the Jury to
70 the
It, even II 1t was proved which 1t not, that he
was Madame Jumels flegitimate son.
hour.
After the recess Mr.. O'Conor resumed his address
W. Bowen was fcr their consideration, and it
would De the duty OF the Court to give them such
advice aSnt Is It might deem proper in regard to
N nars a%s sSa the 18th q May
to Michael workmeister in trust for Madame
JumeL Madame reserved to herself complete
deed Of appointment that Immediately after her
death the property was, In case her husband
eG % 10 70 %as
said that the legal title vested in Workmester the
trustee. 1t was law in the State OF New York that
the trustee, having the equitable title could re.
cover against the person having the cestuf que
trust. But Workmeister being dead could not
bring the action, and no one had brought 1t IN his
behalf. on that ground therefore, there would
not seem to be any difficulty. In 1884 a conveyance
was made to Alexander Hamilton Of part OF
this property, but he seemed not to have been
satisfied with his title, and he reconveyed the
property back to the same parties on the same
trusree and vested II in herself One OF the deeds
Madame to Francis PhiiIippon of the property Tor
Sl0O, GOO, and on the same day and at the same
moment >. Mr.; Phllippon conveyed back the
that was a fraud upon the previous settlement
she was the trustee, the settlement was on record
and Mr. Phillippon knew it. Madame was entitled
to the possession of the whole OF the estate during
her lie, ana BY making fraudulent conveyance
an adverse title could not be set up against the
Madame Jumel the legal title vested in the heirs of
Mary Jumei she being dead. This property never
directly belonged to Madame Jumel; she got 1t
through her marriage with Mr.. Jumel, but he had
left her the power or disposng of it she pleased
ting this man Bowen forward with a technical
title to this property to be put In possession OF 1t
one moment to be kicked out OF it the next, as
could be done by bill In equity by the party in
possession' But to do that 1t would be necessary
for the defendant not only to allege but to prove
that Bowen was an heir. But that was thing the
defendant could not do, and it, therefore, renamed
for Mr. Chase to fight out the case to the last They
BLAcKMAILlNa SUIT
He (Mr. OConor) did not know but that he would
have recommended his client to have settled this
fight another of the bastards who were setting up
claims to this property. He had no doubt there
good claim to this estate as Mr.. Bowen. The de-
PENDANT therefore was obliged to fight and would
HEnJ out Tie case 10 the emu. lie stated they
would show by cOpiOus documents that the most
intimate relations existed between the members of
this family from the time Mary Jumel was admitted
into 1t down to the period Of the death OF Madame
Jumel.A He closed by impeaching the entry in the
King Henry book respecting the birth OF George
Washington Bowen as an utter, rank and corrupt
fraud, recently got up to hO0dwnk the Court.
1t was close upon three O'Clock when Mr.. O'Conor
closed his address.
Evidence was then given to show that Mr. Smith
Barker, an attorney and counsellor at law. of this
city, who was examined upon the last trial. and
who had prepared will for Madame Jumel, had
recently died. Mr.. Barker's deposition respecting
this will, as given upon the last trial, was then
read.
Mr.. John M. Holland, merchant, residing at
Fort Washington, deposed that he was one of the
subscribing witnesses to the will Of Madame Jumel
dated April Is, 1868.
The further hearing of the case was adjourned
until this morning