The New York herald., 1877-03-20
MOTHER AGAINST SON.

MOTHER AGAINST SON.
RropnN1yc OF THE MULoCK CASE IN NEWARK
TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS WORTH
OF PROPERTY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN OBJ
TANNED BY FRAUD.
The celebrated suit Of Mulock vs. Mulock, wherein
Mrs Maria Muock, wealthy widow lady OF this city
sues her only son. William G. Mulock, to recover prop.
erty IN Newark valued at between Sl75,000 and
5000 o00 alleged to have conveyed to him through
fraud was before Vice Chancellor Van Fleet
in Chambers, in Newark, yesterday afternoon Tho
litigation was commenced moro tnan n year ago. the
complainant and the defendant being represented by
the best legal talent OF this city and New Jersey Mrs.
Muock IS in eighty seventh year. and Is the widow
of william Muiock, well known lawyer OF Nassau
street. who, after accumuating large fortune d'ed
many years ago In Brussels, Belgium. At his death
he bequeathcd his estate in this city, Staten Island
ana Newark to wife, who to take good care Of
their three daughters and son, the defendant
ORIGIN OF
Mrs Mulock in her complaint, sets forth that she
entrusted the management OF her property and her
estate largely to her son, who. until recent PERIOD
resided with her in the family mansion in East
eighth street, this city. Owing to her advanced
age nd the implicit faith she placed in his honesty
aud integrity she empowered him to act as her conh-
dental agent collect rents pay bills due by her. at
tend to the sale of property invest money, prepare
papers signed by her and look out for their COM
mon interests. In all these, shc alleges, he has
failed and has grossly betrayed the trust imposed in
him. he having collected moneys her agent which
he has failed for and has conveyed to him
| self through fraud the property at Nos. ~, ~,
and 10 Cross street, Nos. 49, 422 426 Broad
street. and Nos III and III Market street,
the conveyances or either OF them; that she was
never requested to do and that the only way she
Tor her Signature To the deeds To the same
Is that obtained by her son by trick and by art-
hcs on part aud that she executed the same f ut
ain supposing believing that the deeds were re-
| leases or assignments something of that nature
proper necessary Tor her TO execute In the trans.
action OF ner business she frequently required
10 DO She therefore brings suit have the property
TO her. the several deeds and convcyances
10 he declared void and that he required give an
account OF the moneys received by him Tor rents and
that an injunction restraining him from receiving
enjoining him from selling. mortsaging or
| encumbering the property be granted.
| THE DEFENDANTS ANSWER
William G. Mulock answers the allegations Of his
mother by admitting that he acted her agent that
he collected paid bills drew up papers, bonds, deeds,
assignments and checks but that in all such cases he
received advice and instructions from her aud went &C
cordng TO her directions. He acknowledges that she
relied ON his honesty and integrity, but says that she
M uy ns s that he always took good care to
all times OF any papers that hc presented 10 her
| ertv IN Newark ne says that they proper and
were signed by her, she knowing tho contents before
anixng her signature TO the same; that the property
given him in obedience TO the request OF his
! father, who stipulated before his death that he
Nv iam should have larger share OF the estate than
the three daughters.
When the suit was brought both sides appeared with
many witnesses, and the Vice Chancellor was
poyed over 1t for two seasons. The complainant and
her daughter Mrs. Fanny Byrncs reiterated that the
whole transaction was fraud. and were sustained
show that his mother knew that sho had gwen him
the property and cndcavored to show that he was the
s,tr1 aA ltsfa fars
ana others The case would have been closed during
the winter, but the defence discovered two new and
important witnesses, and argued before Chancellor
Runyon in January ior a new hearing The Chancc
lor, dismay Of the counsel for the CON-
pa.nant TO tho surprise OF the legal fraternity
throughout New Jersey, deviated from the beaten
path and granted the notion and the case was re-
opened yesterday afternoon.
| WITNESS
Mrs. Muock appeared IN Vice Chancellor Van Fleets
court room. accompanied oy her daughter, MIS-
Byrncs, Mr. Cortciyou, of New York, and Messrs Nc
Carter anu Elott her counsel. The defendant was
present with his counsel, Mr. Dudley Field Jr., OF
New York Mr. ID. X. Garniss OF New York. and United
states Commissioner Whitehead OF Newark. NO sign
OF recognition passed between mother and son, neither
was there any sign OF emotion manifested on either
side it evidently being case OF the knife, -
and prospects OF compromise or reconciliation
one OF the now witnesses proved to be Mr.. Wright
Robins, formerly OF Metuchcn. N j., but now resi-
dent ol this CITY Upon being sworn he TESTIFIED that
he was personally acquainted with Mrs. Maria Mulock,
tho complainant that he met her at Coney Island
during OF 1s70 while there he was passing
family stopping, ana was requested to stop and
sit down by his wife, who was chatting with Mrs.
Mulock he did so, and during the conversation that
followed he said that Mrs. Mulock told hun that she
had decided the property now the subject oil htigaton
TO her son William, with whom she was well sat
isied; witness also said that Mrs. Mulock told
himself and wife at the same sitting that she had
given each OF her three daughters brown stone
house, and that when she died tho remainder OF her
property would bo evenly divided among them; she
repeated these words and he remembered them After.
ward witness said that he met the defendant at the
Market Street Depot in Newark and he TAXED 10 MN
about the case; that he reminded him oil what DIS
mother had told him at Coney Island, and mat aIer
ward he summoned Witness. In reply to Mr..
McCarter, OF counsel tor The complainant, said that his
time engaged to be married TO william
G. Mulock, and that Mrs. Muock promised to give
her present Of diamonds; he became greatly
to the alleged promise He said he couldn't remcm-
Der; IN fact he was unable to say. He however re-
tcrated that Mrs Mulock had certainly said that sue
had decided tho Newark property TO her son. The WIG
Of the witness called, but IL being shown that she
Is Invalid in this city commission WIS appointed
TO take her evidence. This completed. tho case
VIII be summed up and the Wee Chancellor VIII
render his decision The exctes great interest
from the social Standing OF those Interested IN II,
dict. Mrs. Mulock a widow when she married
her last husband, and has three daughters by hcr
first marriage living in Brooklyn IL Is said that
she and her daughters by her last husband do not
socatc with them IL Is also said that tho three
daughters have been married and havo been III
vorced IRON their husbands. Mrs Muock's wealth Is
estimated at over hall million dollars Tho defend
ant recently figured 10 OF assault and battery In
the courts IN this city and came OF the victor