The New York herald., 1874-05-07
THE COURTS.
The Equity Side Of the Jumel Estate Liti.
gatiOn-Case Submitted and De-
eiSi0n Reserved.
MATRIMONY AND ALIMONY.
Three Times Married and Twice
Divorced.
BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS.

BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS.
The Equity Suit OF Chase W.. Bowen.
the further hearing OF the case OF Nelson Chase
Va. George washington Bowen was resumed yes
terday In the United States District Court before
Judge Blatchford. This Is suit In equity instituted
by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant from fur
tner prosecuting any suit attacking the title OF
Mr. Chase and his children to the Jumel property.
The bill alleges that the suits hitherto brought by
Bowen against Chase have not been brought in
good faith and that Bowen has no title whatever
to the property. The answer OF Bowen is that he
is acting In good fatn and that the illegitimate
son OF Nine. Jumel, which he Claims to be, his
title to the property is good. Already this equity
suit has been argued at considerable length on the
part of the plaintiff by Mr.. Charles OConor. Yes
terday, when the matter was called on, MI L. s.
Chatneld, Mr.. Chauncey Shafer and Mr. Sawyer
appeared as counsel for the defendant. and Mr..
Charles O'Conor and MIR. J. C. Carter for the
plaintiG
Mr.. Chatneld Immediately proceeded to open
the case on the part OF the defendant He thought,
he said that he might very we'll describe this as
peculiar action. Its objects and purposes, as
stated IN the bill OF complaint, together with the
and such case, he believed, had never been pre-
sented before. The object OF it was to take away
The Jurisdiction OF a OF Law and the remedies
which party might claim at law, and TO preclude
them, by way OF an equity suit or an injunction,
from obtaining such remedy. That was done upon
the allegation OF certain trusts, and the only way
in which 1t could be brought into court OF equity
at all upon the notion that certain trusts aud
interests controlled the estate to such an extent as
ITO preclude court OF law from adjudicating upon
the case. He was not unaware that the Or
tgin OF the Court or Chancery was founded in the
necessity that existed Tor the protection OF trust
estates. 1t was understood among the first ele-
ments OF his profession that the Court OF Chan
Gerry had power Tor the protection OF trusts, the
administration OF estates and the punishment OF
fraud; but he had yet to learn--perhaps he might
learn 1t In this actlon-that court Of equity
could restrain Q party from pressing his legal
rights at law or this Court sitting equity,
could restrain the Court In banc al Washington
from proceeding with an appeal taken, or by writ
Of error, or restrain that Court from receiving Q
decision made in Circuit. He was frank to ad-
init that he did not think that could be
done. The learned gentleman then pro.
ceeded In examination OF this case as
It was presented In the pleadings and
upon the proofs. He gave a history Of how he
property In question came into the hands Of Mr..
stephen Jumel by purchase. and said it was ad-
mttted BY both sides that there could be no doubt
Mr.. Jumel went to France in 1919 taking Nine.
Jumel with him. Commencing at this date Mr..
U 5u@e s1s Mna
under apower OF attorney executed by her Eus-
as ass sna sa slsa M
3umel Bowen, Workmester, Alexander Hamilton
and Pn,llippon. lnis history was % iuiy gwen on
ported in the HERALD, and IL Is entirely unneces-
sary to repeat 1t now Counsel admitted that there
which neither the paintin nor the defendant was
entitled 1t did not appear to be covered by any
any title to it. 1t vested Mr.. Jumels heirs II he
-siad any. and II not It went by escheat TO the
nsT % O % o
this property was two years after The death or
Mme. Jumei could not claim to be acting for him
nnder the power OF attorney. None Of the prop
erty over which she could exercise any control,
conveyance. The only lot Workmester had any
power to convey was lot No. 9. In Oc-
the same trust-ii trust Tor Nine. Junel-to
RSorkmetster. MIR. O'Conor had gwen a solu-
s, sion Oh snaa operaton, imagnng tnaI Mr, Ham.
had no ttrle under the appointment. and for that
reason gave up the tite and received back the
consideration money, $1,000. There was no proof
tnat tnar was, but 1t was after Nine. Jumel be-
came NINE. Burr. OF all the people in the world to
go to 10 protect her from an enemy OF Burr's the
last wouia be Mr.. Hamilton. Mr.. Hamilton took
nne title long before Burr dled. NINE. Jumei sepa-
rated s No Nom sne got GGres r9m % nm and
was granted on the very day Burr died.
Mr. O'Conor-lt was granted some time before.
but It is some what singular coincidence that 1t
was enrolled the very day he died.
Mr. Chatned-I presume my learned friend
Knows exactly, 1or he was in that case. Mr.. Chat
1leld then went on to say that he had made the re-
markS Just uttered because the bill filed against
them covered the whole OF the property and the
property acquired alter the death Of Mr. Jumei by
Nine: Jumel.
concerned there is a claim made against the whole
Mr. 6Conor-so far as those written papers are
concerned, that Is true. We do not make out any
paper title on the spot to any more than the piece
OF property mentioned by Mr.. Chatheld. But it
ninety-our acres that were conveyed, as my friend
says, to Mr.. Hamilton. That is The part OF 1t on
ts ms ana Il e s Now Is se 70 ss
no conveyance has been found from stephen
Jumel 10 Mary Jumel Bowen for part OF the ninety
yeyance mas been found from stephen Jumel to
as my friend says. This appears to have
been piece OF very wild, kind of
which you may suppose, the title resting in Ste
phen Jumels heirs but It was very evident that
NINE. Jumel and Mr.. workmeister thought diner.
emily. Whether they had adequate reason for
thinking so may be q question. They thought that
the whole OF this ninety-four acres had been con-
to Workmester in trust and the same was made
by W0rkmeister under the supposed power OF ap-
p0intment, as II the whole OF IL had been con.
veyed. Mr. Hamilton conveyed the whole OF 1t on
the same trust on which 1t had previously been
held, az rectted In the deed TO him. When Mr.
Jumel came back rom France IN 1928, he told
most intelligent and respectable person, Mr..
Carl, VINO had been examined on the trial, that
every bit OF his property had been conveyed away
from him. so tnat he had nothing left that he could
can his own; that he was displeased with the
rangement; that he had effected settlement with
Nine. Jumel that he WAS TO have good and COM
Portable subsistence out OF the property while he
lasted and that the whole was 10 60 10 Mary alter
tueu 0eath.
After heightened argument as 10 the legal and
equitable effect OF the various deeds Ited IN the
course OF the discussion, Mr.. Chatfield contended
that there was no latent equity In Mary Jumel
Bowen 10 show that the property ever belonged
20 her. He referred 10 authorities to show that
the power In the trust must be governed by the