New-York tribune., 1880-03-09
THE COURTS.


DECISIONS BY JUSTICE VAN worst IN THE TWO SUITS
BROUGHT BY JUDGE CowING's BRorHER-iN-LAw'
Justice Van Worst yesterday rendered de-
cson IN the two suite brought the Supreme Court
Special Term against Judge Rufus 3. Cowng by George
E Tuguot. his brother-inaw. II one SUIT DIT Iugnot
sought TO brag the defendant account "a ns guoroan
for tho money and property Of the plaintiff ~hch came
INTO his hands guardian In deciding this acuon JUS
tce Van Worst saysi
The evidence which has been introduced before me
does not iu any Particular sustain toe gfOnnds upon
wncu au accounting is asked snow any good reason
iOr ustfu'ilng fhe settlement already ndde auu io ~
reasons assigned oy me 40 the close ~ me case mst
~ it gully n fairly and honestly made, an1
20 the entire and intel gent ssctOu 0i the pianth
aud that The case coses no error or lust occasion
inpcsch that accounting aud tirmelt and tnat 10
new Or gier Accounting a1Oud be ordered or tue re-
lease tlcn given De .rtea TIE pIlu ms complaint
in tnat action should be dismissed on the merits.
The substance " the second action involved an exam
naton INTO tie validity Of sale made b. Fhe plaintiff
OF ls Interest In the bonds and land OF the lafayette
Coal Company which, 10 & alleged n the complaint. lie
made 90 the defendant Oh Juy 81 1873 II wa. alleged
that the defendant took unfair advantage OF the
paipt.6s pressing need and secured to himself pur-
chase OF tho Interest 40 below lts value that he
.raVduleuty concealed information which he possessed
with sJc,t 10 the value o. the land NJ which tD
interest and that tAs defendant held sucn relation
tho plaintiff having been ueiiy his guar lan and
counsel. aud beng the of the executors Of
ilc interest
justice VIA vor.t after an exhaustive examination
or the evidence, shows th8t proves shat Judge Gov ing
concealed uOtmag from bis ward he plaintiff, as to the
ya.ue Of tue land t1e bonds ami ued 10 persuade
liu not 10 sell them. Wuon. however. be that he
wa determined To dispose Of the bonds Judge COwlng
Dndeayortd 20 make rs advantageous bargain for MIN
Hs possible. After examination o. authorities IN
go.nt Jusic. Van Vors. conunue>i
In he Hrit OF these p?ncp'es the ca-c lotore US l.
auy tIle be N6iC1 cannot Oe sustained in
court OF atty. me defendant hmself made no sale or
tle prop yas trustee gn1rlth Or o.acrWi,e. me
saie Was made by the palnuH himself In3 defendant
himself puchlsed no property although hi %lie di1
chtse, however Innocent she nlgn be ~ her action II
mr. "usH1.i 'as prevented rom pifchaslng ON 9e- 9e
count Of any trust relation no occupied To-
vnrI tne plGnun. IN regard 70 tne $4,000 oi
09a' III @ r s, ln m aB9 By"s scb roeon enI0 TO s6 s
plant WoHId prrc udr his wiz Irom making the
purclasc. Tue plaintiff hsd arrived at ms MINORITY
nearly year preyou- and uad bad On accounting with
ni- -l cdah. nut nad taken tus, VI Other OF MS
confidential relations between tine painfif and defend
VITA repect To these oond-. had ended the DE-
'eudau5 oad ticn 10 the plhntH an ihe I'D noinou9n 2
h,- te-t o tuas ne had Withheld nothing nom hlm;
respect oil aud o. Hore chcrs 10 purcbaso.
luo pDn1f himself 'eq a. 'ondcG at e'si one metsnS
no'acro me lana, pre-cnt. ana gt which he gave.
.s lts. lI tue information which ho possessed ia
rcapco TO te then present AM !lt4c prospects 'I tLe
lsud ....,.-,.,.,
Il
uoJ r 20 t4c te of tIe ~ .usacuon of wncn con-
ua.ut s ms1e. set t Una, well or considered that ths
TUE p.antn. uit biotherr-iaw 9ud former ward. be-
fore taur th' pi Iip-as ns wii" 49, ihat Us sne"
u., al,aoag hs u..Srt moo expect TO ssrure any pc
cu,iry benefit iron. The trau.'cuou. Bu- under the
evidence l., duty tle defralantfuly met. and While
-, ...7 ,.,. - tl y. hand. "A I'm, . ore
pl-.0 FROM executors go th, ferr duut guardian,
a., i.'f.a- tae drfe.I,i.i as executor nor bis 90
.| I. Oh
thelr purchase from ID, p.smuf : cannot sce
t.t don. rH. VOCATION oi aus trust relation tHe
frt oi .rHd.If os iuY vru ne 'w-' the pia,r-
ua lu a.' lo. Ls w.c H iI' pay ha-c o' ne bonds,
ulcu tac Ylnuuf hs amy iu.t ur. aston o. compein 10
lu..r regard No.oo tr in..- show t.sg DE defendant
rl,..t.i ANY lr0f.--Ious. tuty us attorney
or couose uoratl1w. or thn' he al us
umc o..a,lcd such relations toward tie rmuu0
Il,l.i Io 'lce tnt tic d. end dtni exercised any
l.dn nco oges 1ac pa,uuE % induce D ~ 10 ,sii.
/ co. $1,000 which equity son omus. Jlasti by ne
/ aIle-Itol, tr tne c"mpnai t vas Clearly ln tHe
cause b.. c,ud,nnauon J'' trausscuou rot So much
ou tUc elutld o.. legal fiit as f,r t.e reason that
there Aai been s j. al'- 10 sc "" irn"' pcr.t r'ie9
pt tH, ot'r iant Uf'" I'D "ii'c frnfr-'n alton DId
Kuirf. 'ac cidcac I'm mo- rar cuar eusruns 1t no
.uca i.a0d or couo' .hmeaj - s1."9 ineTS was IA
t rr,. bg In. .I., 4, v., ,lg 4l-.u,,ac Anl only
eud'utr V'tr astc' ny aad 'A'' % save ''o b'Ed'
q, fh, Iati.a,r d., iar p,alrt.n'- aot hc was ad-
si-e D., iAo. d, ''st, oi 1i. Dfoih.rs. lay e9prc-
equity ,n avoid tne act, of parties because they ar"
,' fI.,... '. ,i..ii - f,r sis4 rr-,o t.sy win
dispose 90 f.Ir r.Op,r 9pu ua-s they have been
defuut,d luio a| Impr1vl.en, rnrA.t of oithce or
mlse f,pr.s, ut4. l'u AND wiz r.'-hit W,- c.l e
o,. og ni cn1cellrcat t1 mus. 'hide oy u elr
bargain W.rn jlc d.frn nt- wife wa- on tle -tFud
as % Witness tlis action, ~nr Wa asN'd D' tIe de-
rIdauf. counsel otr--srl-ro'o 'he aaa ! ihe
purchase 80 t'"-r "ona- iH' question vas oilftrd
80 be tl" p,ai"uH, counsel "ud cAcmird
10. 80 90 docs DOT appear in the ca.e
plotrcls i,ai1 ' 1y htr ou hose bonds Heioie CON
mrnring tis Hc. .i ih. p' ln'lH ll ~ & P'
unrf to restore whtt ue had received, made
or ans c'ssOisacion VITA hS OF iurI aCLoh lhc oou
ucu ot THIS action w;t. ,ho plaut n- first notice
90 thc defendant. Had an, s"ch previous demand o,
complaint bcca made 70 - pOpsU.c titt thr piahun
would have armed rhc purpose ot the defendants
Aaye u, lar discusscd tre locality octhe sac OF tie
bones to the uHuuut oi - 900, uu nVr rnl specifically
ady ttcd 10 the interest o tIc palnUu 10 S3,lOo o.
uold. wach were IA ilu tine hands of tI executors 81
thr q ne ot jho IA c uudy Ged AS To tho interest and
W...cu passed ~ tho b.N OF safe, different rulo
may auDiy And tho trans ,ot Ons. In far as
to tt1 i.i auG tquible Ou 'cJn ih2t ihe dcfrnGanG
u i r,,sv "a x,cutnr could no; Hct FOR HIS wiie IN
s pircua-c uud'r tho utOrcs uhoNr c.fed atthuugh
% ~, ,y az ,i "a to vi,rrrrt M IN dsu"sur Of that
d pl.f o. ,n., aciOu. An expression adverse {" teF
,l,f u opportunity OF being heard would ne unfair,
bud 81. .Idiuait0u against ner cOud conclude nef
ctt. ~Ae t. ltsnl tiile, aud cnIo b. dN'bted W.T.
oHi uoG- HcslG. The fact tnat the uettndan's
wife. iu. of the deirndnnt, wis the purchaser
wOu.d JUSTIFY d5mssa o. tni' sui aud unless sac -
bronx dcfOnuuut in twenty da's, such i" III hr
nr Judgment iu this case; bus n brought III defend
an. Che remaining cqmy VIII tee limited 10 cohsHeia-
tou OF the question IN respect 60 The purchase ny me
ol bond,, s proplety ami legally In respect to she
$500 oil bonds, tne question Is as above disposed or
ON TRIAL FOR MURDER.