The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-05-14
A THIRTY YEARS LITIGATION.
Curious and Interesting Suft-What
Came Of Marrying an Actress-A Mill
lion Dollars Worth OF Central Park

Curious and Interesting Suft-What
Came of Marrying an Actress-A Mill
lion Dollars Worth Of Central Park
Lots the Bone of Legal Contention.
Applied to the chancery practice of England the suit
o. Jarndyce vs.. Jarndyce is not altogether fanciful
sketch not often. however in this country in
which everything Is pushed forward ut high
speed that suits nger very long in the Courts occa
sionalv there is exception, and yesterday this was
given by Judge Van Brunt holding Supreme Court Spe
cial Term decision in which has been in litga-
ton for thirty years.
CASE.
On September &C. 1889. John Mason died in this CITY,
owning real and personal estate then valued
million dollars. He left eight children, among them
James Mason. Some time before his death his James
had offended HIM by marrying a Miss Wheatley, sn
actress and he had settled him farm Long Isl,nd.
which was held in trust for him. and in his will Les him
IN annuity OF $3.50 year for life with remainder to
his children. Litigation was begun to set aside mis- will,
and after the exhaustion of nearly every of ltga-
tion the will finally broken and James Mason was
declared entitled to oneeighh of his fathers estate in
1855 This the part allotted to him, Includes ninety
lots what is the Central Park, with other
real estate During his ltigations Mr. James Ring was
his counsel and his charges in all one hundred
and sixtyve thousand dollars. After settlement o.
their accounts Mr. Ring claimed and W. Mason conveyed
TO him forty-fve of the ninety ots under what was
claimed TO be the old agreement Soon after this Mr..
Mason, who then advised oy Mr. Cone as his attor-
ney determined to t,ese forty five lots Shortly
Mason sissT to Mr. Gram and
which Would s thus Be contingent on Success After
lots his share About this time Dune 1859 Mr. Mason,
' TYING
on ssmnng the title Of the lots Mr. Cram
s:sss1i ss%sShs he PIspsSiy judge ssa Hon
ns S M s Ss
Ss Ps he
ssd
Soo that 81 go IN cash should be paid BY Mr. CRAM
:: he ana should ~
g &c until s
s snd ndemnv was To- 0es5 S Of the
f Sns ,y In vhiS s an made with
Be- sam was S
ss "a sssss Ws,
sH r N 1 G se the hs. cos,s
Of the litigation only The amount that n sd ps
b s sPse y ss Sl M NJ s
with Mr. Cone and MI s Gram Ms new attorneys were
on Mr. Mason 70 u his CONTRACT new waco COUNSEL aa
% hs s mot Ss @
new litigation, decided to carry 1t out place OF
as ne p gssass & Ts SssS e
edged the deed In the usual FORM but she testified this
suit that she influenced to do 1t by her husband who
told her his honor was pledged to It. This deed
cuted November 26 1866 and Mr. Cram at paid the
value OF $30000 James Mason died July % 1852 his
widow sole legatee after rendering $l0l0O0 TO Mr.
Cram for his expenses and outlay, brought suit to
aside the agreement of September 1885, and the deed Of
November 1866 The trial of this suit commenced about
month ago. before Judge Van Brunt, stated above
and lasted about three weeks Judge Van Brunt his
decision yesterday
Judge Van Brunt In his opinion holds that transactions
between attorney and client subject grave
pcion carefully scrutinzed by the courts lie
points out however, that according to the best evidence
they have, these oryfve lots thirtyx Sixty second
street. running from Fourth to Fifth and nine
In the block between Fiityfourh and Fifty fifth streets
AMI Fourth and Fifth avenues, then only valued at
SIo0W That Al,00 for two-thirds was not therefore,
10 ar out Of the way then. however greatly the value
may nave Increased since then and that though many
respects the contract greatly favored Crane by It's
OF the event OF the suit and the probability
should urn out uniavorably that all the
moneys PAID ny him for taxes assessments might
lost lie compliments highly the plaintiffs attorneys for
not only Withdrawing the charge against Mr. Cram that
he procured the agreement before Informing Mason OF
Judge hoiimans decision, but produced the evidence
which was In their sole which cleared him OF
which dignifed the Bar '
OF course in suit of this magnitude the property In
question beng valued at DO there was retinue Of
able lawyers on both sides The paintifrs counse Jwere
Mr. william A. Beach and Messrs Therasson 4 Brvant
and the deendnnts exJpdge Jchp X. Porter and san.
ford Robinson Woodruff. Tho printlfrs counsel said
ON the dechQn being uade known " them, that they