New-York tribune., 1874-05-07
THE COURTS.
TuE JITMEL ESTATE CASE.
Chairman
Architects.

ARGUMENTS or MESSRs. CHATF1ELD AND OCoNoR'
In the United States Circuit Court yesterday
exAttorney General Chatied replied to Mr. oConor
argument for injunction restraining George Wash'
ington Bowen from bringing more wrs 10 eject the
Chases from the Jumel estate. IL was he sad not ohy
very peculiar but entirely novel case the oDect OF
the plaintiff being to take the jurisdiction OF
court of law and prevent by Injunction person from
bringing suits equities which justly belong to
him." That he claimed could not be DONE because IL
would involve the restraining by this Court OF the
United states Supreme Court from hearing an appear
In the matter and there process OF law by
which citizen can be deprived OF his rights. IL was
urged by Mr. OConor that Nine Jumel divested herself
OF the ttlo to the question by deciding 1t III fee
simple to {her adopted daughter Mary Jumel Bowen
who subsequently conveyed it to Michael werkmester
in trust for the benefit OF Nine. Jume and with power
to designate whom the estate should 20 after her
death; and that, having exercised that power, sho
had when she died, property which Bowen could in-
herit even IL he what he claims to be- In reply
ing TO that point of Mr. OConors argument Mr. Chat'
field reced the heretofore published history OF the
Jnmel estate referred considerable length to the En-
gsh law governing trust estates. and contented that
the trust deed werkmlester was not, according to
long discussion then foil owed relative to the owner
ship OF 81 of land lying along Kings Road and Mt
OConor admitted that it belonged % the separate estate
heirs were persons who could claim 1t. After
brief review by Mr. OConor OF the evidence OF tne
Cbases title TO the estate Mr. Chated raised the old
question OF what deeds had had not been proved ana
attacked the conveyance by Nine. Jme D her adopted
daughter. the ground that IL was, as he claimed
without valid cons ieration. long citation OF au-
tortes IN support OF his positions followed Mr. ChAt-
fields main position on the question OF ne oAs,s
20 the estate TO be that by the deed 10 Mary Ju
mel Bowen Nine. Jumel did not diyest herself OF the
title to the property mentioned in it, on account Of the
alleged want OF consideration.
In replying 20 Mr. Chatield, Mr. OConor briefly sum-
marz d his opening argument in tins case, and con.
tended that according to law the deed executed by
Nine Jumel TO Mary Jume Bowen gave her all indie
fr ble title the estate described in IT, and that she
could therefore convey In trust for the benefit OF Mme
Jumel with power 10 designate the persons to whom
II should 20 after her death; that she named such
persons Mrs Chase and her hers and nat therefore,
tho title of the latter 10 the estate perfectly valid and
shou no longer made the subject OF legal cOnten
ton but should be "quieted or. In other words. that
by decree the Court the Chascs should be put IN
fu possession Of the "Their title to it,"
said Mr.. O'ConOr :" is as snug rs bug In rug" lie
closed his argument by otng numerous authorities IN
support his position and Judge Blatchfori reserved
his decision.