The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-05-19
GOLDEN AGAINST GOLDEN.
DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO
CHARGES or CONSPIRACY
Peter Goiden's Experience with Anesed
Real Estate Agents-A Night that Ended In
m BInnk-Testimony that was not Taken.

Peter Goldens Experience with Allesed
Real Estate AgenIs-A Night that Ended In
n Biank-Testimony that was not Taken.
An indictment was found az the present
term OF the Monmouth County. n. j.. Court
against Samuel T. Knapp and Robert II. Drake
for conspiring TO mid Elizabeth Golden in OBJ
tanning n divorce from her husband. Peter
Golden. Of Homdel
About twelve years ago Peter Golden. then
thriving young farmer In Holmdell. married
Elizabeth knapp She was tho daughter OF
Samuel Knapp we-to-do farmer on the Rari-
tan River. near New Brunswick. Golden in
herited n valuable homestead that had been in
his family for many generations and was worth
perhaps $50 600. Golden shared the prosperity
Of the Monmouth County farmers for several
years. He was enterprsinR in introducing i'm
provemcnts, and when times grew worse he put
heavy mortgages on his property. In 1873 the
mortgages had reached the total OF 81. 1000.
Golden then determined to 20 into the real es-
tate business in New York. He made an ar
rangement with his father in-law. Samuel
Knapp. whereby the latter was to take deed Of
the Golden farm and work 1t for a stated period.
at the end Of which, according to his written
agreement he wac to convey 1t to his daughter.
Mrs. Golden, for the benefit OF herself and her
children.
After one year in the real estate business
Golden decided that farming was safer call
inr. His father -in-law advised him to work
some other farr and desired the execution OF
the written aRre ment TO turn the farm over to
his daughter. Golden had left the agreement
in the custody of his wife. who had remained on
was disposed to ceave TO her father rather
than TO him. She had forgotten the purport
Of the agreement and had lost the paper in
trusted TO her care. When Golden brought suit
In chancery to make his father-in-law recon-
yey. he was confronted with deed nude by tho
father in-law to his son. Samuel 7. Knapp.
seeking to cover the property. Ms Golden ieges.
by pretended sale In. the suit which fol-
lowed. Golden proved by Judge Strong OF New
Brunswick the execution of the agreement: and
although his wife sided with her brother who
Vice. Chancellor decided that s young Samuel ,
bought the farm with his eyes open. that he
must reconvey TO his father. and his father
must perform his agreement by conveying 10
Mrs Golden.
This decision was very distasteful to tho
Knapps. They had paid of most of the mort
cages on the farm: and now Golden was ten
ant for life and could eject them from tho
Of Errors and Appeals. This, court affirmed
the Chancellors decision. Judge Scudder de-
lveriug the opinion Of the court. and the prop
erty was put in the hands OF trustee for the
benefit Of Godens wife and children.
About two years ago two agreeable, young
men appeared in the village OF Freehold, whore
irequented. They hired the best, team in the
and rental Of different pieces Of real estate.
Peter Golden gave his services 20 the polite
strangers. Their cards bore the address OF a
well-known real estate agency in New York.
They could do no less than extend the hospi-
talities Of the city 10 man who had been so
very useful and ohliging. Golden visited New
York with them. He was ashamed to find him
self in the place where he awoke the next
morning He maintains that he was drugged.
Within day or two proceedings for divorce
were begun against Peter Golden on the part
OF his wife. based on his conduct while in the
company OF his friends, the real estate agents.
A little inquiry disclosed the fact that they were
reputed to be- detectives, and that after leaving
him the next morning they had gone before a
notary public and made the alldavits upon