New-York tribune., 1878-11-23
THE COURTS.
responsibilities OF A TRUSTEE
Testimony IN THE COLES MORRIS SUIT.

Tho trial of a suit brought by. Coles MOTIFS
v..nc,s q uollins. was begun yesterday before
Iudee Van Brunt in Supreme Court Cha"poi'
o,a,m ia that the defendant obtained trom mi '
while mentally prostrated. acsnveyanee oi ~
erty IN Jersey City, That property was i'i'i so 40,
%" - -, -, rod II 10 Mr.. Morris ror $240O,
n mortgage which. though IN name 70 ''o,i'o,
Zoe, On HIM in trnst for Mrs feneiopo a.
Mo,r4s He claims that the interest Oh 'ni' "'oi
,as in arrears but that le advahceu quo i"''ioo'
., xrs Morr,s aad that though ne was copcoo a., ~, 0
f9reclOs an bny IN tDe PioP'i''' ="
II or 'nosy Was generally, that the property had
been spie pdsncc al Francis C. Holiins. The defn!-
nt vac "a folows Coles Morris WAS trustee " ,ne
t.,s ~ LINN d. Curs which, some OF Mr. Coiess chi-
dren having died without heirs, vas rely
10 be divided into four paris Mr. mor,is @ HI,,' ,,G
self being entitled to one. MI Mors US o'ne ot1e@
l,wycr ~ active practice. was trustee lot Soe ubGI
pr0perty lie suddenly discovered tLa, oWng 70 r ue &
esian of property aud Other causes n nD Mr. Morris
part he was actually IN Default ne st'en , 49,, ~ ,
family one of tie heirs was his own Ssso' na sn0
minor aud the fourth share was owned ny
Children Of snotne5 noodsre W. Dwighs faulty,
Mrs Penelope A. Morris, an Ehslsh family cnnrch AT
Perth Amb9y and He was na eacd m ~ w WAS f nay
ageed Mr. Morris should turn over all ms property
only resesvins 80 hal I}r Psron; 20 fS ScT H'lSI n
that Mes. Hullns should assume the payment
of all the other cl;ims. This had been done
lO.
pleasant fauIy scandal had been averted IL that ar
rangement properly fOrec'Osed under the Slevn
mortgage was incud d. Dr. sayre acted with
the defendant In the transaction for his
mother and ior Penelope A. Morris. The defendant
detailed at length his conversations with Mr.. Morris.
He stated that at that tme Winter OF 1S76lS77 bls
aud hls mothers purpose TO protect MI Norris who
then at least dreaded arrest aud TO save as much OF the
trust funds possible. Mr.. Norris OBJECTED
throughout TO this evidence, claiming tla; II
was N material points untrue; that the case for
a general accounting in which 1t might have been
proner had adjouned and that In this case t was
not pertinent and 6e could properly reply 10 it,
Judge Van Brnt struck all not strictly relating To
the property question. Tie witnesses examination
was interrupted 10 allow Dr. Lewis A. Sayre,
who had attended Mr. Morris at the time OF his trouble
10 testify. DR.. sayre identified the deed conveying
this propery nd objected that he had no night ia
state what patient said judge Van Brunt ru ed that
ho must testify. His testimony was thdt Mr.. Morris
at the time greatly excited. and tnat he acted
as friend Of the family, and as sucl
had pressed on him the arrangement which was
finally made In outline IL was the arrangement de
by the defendant though he did not recall partc
ulars Coles Morris the Doctor in regard
70 his MOrTss) condition ut the time, but the
witness insisted that though much excited by his troubles
he preseDl. The case is still on Coles
Morris in person and NJ H. CadOzO appear for the pai
TIL Ex-Governor Bede and John L. Hill for the defend
ant