The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-04-28
THE COURTS.
The Jlmel Estate Case Rrviyed-Thc Tables
Tufned-Chase Against Bowen.
LEGISLATIVE LOBBYING
Pains and Penalties Of Having Claim
Against the City-Cost of
Lobby Agent.

The Suit Of Chase VS.. Bowen--Another
Lengthy Litigation In the Courts.
The readers OF the HERALD will remember the
case OF George Washington Bowen, OF Provi-
dence, R. l., VS.. Nelson Chase, which was tried
twice In the United States Circuit Court-once,
when the jury disagreed, and, second time. when
the jury, after trial extending over thirteen
weeks found verdict for Mr.. Chase. The plain
TIN, Bowen, claimed that he was the illeglttmate
son and heir-at-iaw OF Nine. Jumel and. as
such, sought to eject the defendant, Cnase from
the possession OF large estate situate on the up
per part OF this island, near Fort Washington.
This estate became vested In the family
OF Mr.. Chase under deeds executed By
NINE. Jumei As the HERALD has frequently
published the facts, II Is unnecessary to go into
them on the present occasion further than to say
that ON the conclusion or the trial alluded to,
MIR. Chase entered suit in equity IN the United
States Circuit Court against Bowen to RESTRAIN him
from again proceeding In the litigation, alleging
that II had not been commenced in the nrst in
stance in good faith; that in fact Bowen had no
claim at all to the property. Nine. Jumel having
.long before the commencement OF the suit parted
with her interest in the property, which was only
o lie interest; and that, even If Bowen were the
son OF Mme Iumel, Mr.. Chase and his children had
an equitable title, derived from Nine. Jumel which
, was complete bar to Bowens claim. The answer
OF Bowen sets forth that he entered into the igu-
tlOn with good faith; that he has O good claim
and that, as the son OF Nine. Jume he believes his
title to the property in question valid as against
all other PERSONS
The hearing Of this equity suit was commenced
yesterday in the United States Circuit Court be-
fore Judge Blatch1ord.
Mr.. Charles O'Conor and Mr.. J. G. Carter ap-
aa for Mr. Chaee md
'Chatfield and Mr.. Sawyer Tor Mr.. Bowen.
Mr.. Charles O'Conor, in stating the case on the
part Of the plaintiff, said tDat Bowen, the defend
ant, claimed to be the son and sole heir Of Nine.
Jumel and brought certain suits in the courts OF
the State OF New York under the code, Alter this
York the plaintiff removed them ali into
this Court, and they were all now here.
Bowen VS. Chase the jury disagreed. A year later
the case was again brought to trial before q
special jury and alter similarly protracted trial
verdict and judgment were rendered against the
plaintiff, Bowen. The plaintiff then prepared
oill Of exceptions, writ Of error and stay OF pro-
ceedngs. The bill now filed by the plaintiff, Chase,
was 0led while the jury were out In that case-at
least y was filed before the verdict was given.
cept what had occurred up to the point OF time be-
tore the verdict was rendered. The supplemental
answer in the case simply stated the facts that
: verdict and judgment, that bin or ex-
ceptaons was taken, writ Of error
and an amended answer, aud nc might say that ne
the amended answer Alter describing tue prop
Ierty Mr.. OConor said Nine. Jumel nad no inter-
est IN IT but LIE interest. This interest was vlr-
tuatiy anu IN valid manner settled upon Mrs.
Chase. the wife OF Nelson Chase, now deceased,
and her heirs, and at the death OF Mime. Jumel the
wnole OF stephen Jumel's estate became absolutely
in and went into the possession OF the heirs
ct law, these being Mr.. Chase's two chill
Idren, and they have been possession ever Since
The question here would be whe Their the construc-
1on ne gave to the Instruments by which the
There Wonid, really be no inquiry at ali whether
g. W. Bowen was or was not the son OF Nine.
ynmeL NINE. Jumel, in 1854, introduced MISS
French family, and stated to them treaty OF mar
Rage between Miss Chase ana the only child Of that
ton was spoken Of but Mime. Jumel said 1t was not
the practice OF people IN America to end2w
ta Se % Hsasn mot q Wiling ns o 70
taItner now than to give certain annuity,
lWilam, who were the claimants IN Mme Jumel's
estate. The plaintiff claimed that Mime. Jumel at
her death was indebted to Mrs. Perry and her
brother for q very large sum OF money, and they
then showed that that Indebtedness fully exceeded
Of her own .as she lett rhas Gd not a
Aude Mr. Jumes property, and II Bowen be Mme
'Jumel's heir-ataw he was bound to pay that debt
over and above what the estate would produce.
Mr.. O'Conor said the object OF this suit was to
put an end to this wasting and protracted lltiga-
very distinguished citizen who was referred to In
he proofs as his father and OF NINE. Jumel, and
Ter her-at-law, he ought to wish them to bring
uch suit as this, and not have unnecessary liti-
alton within the restricted and narrow limits Of
aereiy legal jurisdiction.
After considerable legal argument between Mr..
eCOnOr and Mr. Chatfield, q number OF deeds and
apers relating to the Jumel estate were put in
violence.
Mr.. Paul X. j. Perry was called rs a witness on
he part OF the plaintiff. He testified In relation
hts marriage with Miss Chase, at Bordeaux, in
Boa He identified two letters whlcn were writ
% by Nine. Iumel ia 1854 to MS latner IN refer.
nee TO his (wiLnessn marriage with Miss Chase
saw the letters alter his IatAer had opened anu
cad them; the letters Influenced MIN as to the
iarrtage on account OF the offer OF settlement
ade by Nine. Jumel, but he would have married
he lady without money; witness or his parents
I'd no knowledge or information as to the value
cared IN the letters in question.
Mrs. Perry was also examined. She testified in
slHtOn to ner marriage, and as to the provision
AIDE for her BY her aunt, Mime. Jumei.
MIR. q. Il. A. Hendricks gave evidence with re.
srd to the execution OF some OF the deeds relating
the Jumel property.
Mr.. Augustus +. Smith, o lawyer residing at Fort
ashiDgCOn, testified that the land on the JumeI
tate looking towards the North River was-worth
b0ut 81, $40 an acre. The land tine same estate
the other side, was probably about half that
lue
An inventory Of the estate Of Nine. Jumel was
80 given in evidence.
some other documentary proof having been put
the Court adjourned till this morning