The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1880-07-07
THE NEW CHAIRMAN.
Some Facts Relating to Marshall Jewell,
who Is to Conduct Garfield's Campaign.
washington Special to Chicago Times.l

Grants Cabinet. His election as Chairman
OF the National Committee to day is regard
ed by the conservative Republicans here as
positive proof that all. OF the Grant leaders
intend to remain in the background and
take no active part in the campaign. Mar
shall Jewell is grossly incom petent man
for the place, He is an egotistical, unpop-
uler, untrustworthy man, who is hated sim
cereiy by all the Grant people. He is about
five feet eight inches in height; his head is
large, sud well set off by snowy-white, lux
uriant hair; his com plexion is q clear pink
and-white; his eyes are blue and fshy; his
nose small. straight and red. A snowy
white mustache aud goatee set of full,
red-lipped, sentuous-lined mouth, that Is
always ready to smile and display a Mr.. Car
ker set OF shining white teeth. He is rich,
and would-be aristocrst, without ability
He was grossly incompetent in the manage
ment OF the Postofice Department. Presi-
dent Grant demanded his resignation for
duplicity IN the matter of the Boston post
mastership. Jewell when in official life,
advertised himself well at one of his rscep-
tons by having chsH payne in one OF his
rooms for official guests, and sherry in the
other for the untitled guests. In addition TO
his snobbish vulgarity and unpopularity, he
is as fine target as Garfield for criticism.
All one will have to do is TO go to the records
of the Supreme Court 10 find Marshall Jew
ellis character. Probably no man in public
upon his personal honesty than were passed
upon Jewell by the Supreme Court of the
United States in the fall term OF 1876 in
this decision 1T was shown that jewell, by
unfair means, got possession of the property
of poor woman il Detroit through taking
advantage OF her weakness of mind. The
Court set the title aside. and used very plain
language in so doing. Suit was brought by
Eli Allor, heir at-law of Mary Z. GeDeyeive
Thibauit, late of Detroit. Mich, to cancel a
conveyance OF land alleged TO have been
obtained from her few weeks before her
death, when, from her condition,
she was incapable of understanding the
nature and effect of the transaction. The
following extract from the decision OF the
Supreme Court shows the nature of the
transaction:
Deceased died at Detroit on the 4th OF Febru
airy, aged sixty-four, intestate, leaving COM
plainant her sole surviving heir-at-law. For
many years previous to her death and until
execution of the conveyance to defendant she
was seized in fee of the land in controversy,
situated in that city, which she occupied as
homestead. In November, 1863, defendant
obtained from her conveyance OF this prop
erty.
A copy of the conveyance Is set forth in
the bill. IL contains covenants of seisin and
warranty by grantor, and Immediately fol-
lowing them an agreement by defendant to
pay her $3.50 upon delivery of the instru-
ment, an annuity of $500 all her physicians
bills during her life, taxes on her property
for that year, and all subsequent taxes dur
ing her life, also that she should have the
uss and occupation of the house until the
spring OF 1864, or that he would pay the rem.
OF such other house as she might occupy I'M
til then. The property WIS then worth,
according to the testimony in the case.
between $4,000 and 5000. The deceased
was at that time between sixty and seventy
years of age, and was confined TO her house
by Sickness from which she never recovered.
She lived alone In a state of great degrad-
| alton, and was without regular attendance
in her sickness There were no persons
present with her at the execution OF the
conveyance except defendant his agent and
his attorney. The $3.50 stipulated for was
paid, bot DO other payment was
made to her. She died few weeks after
ward. As grounds for caDceling convey
ance complainant alleges that deceased,
during the last few years of her life, was
afflicted with lunscy or chronic insanity,
and was go iDtirm as to be incapable OF tran
sacting any business of importance; that her
last sickness aggravated her insanity, greatly
weakened her mental faculties, and still
more disqualified her fer business; that de-
| PENDANT and his agent knew of her inhrm-
| lty, and that there was no reasonable
prospect of her recovery from her sickness or
of her long surviving when the conveyance
| was taken; that she did not understand the
| nature of the instrument, and that il was
obtained for an insignificant consideration
and in q clandestine msnner, without her
having any independent advice. These ale
| cations defendant controverts, and AYERS the
conveyance was taken upon proposition of
| deceased; that at the date OF its execution
she was in full possession of her mental fac
/ u ii &c, appreciated the value of the property,
| and was capable of contracting with refer
ence to il, and of selling or otherwlse deal
ing with it; that since her death he occupied
and made permanent improvements 10 the
value of 81 600, and that complainant never
gave him notice of any claim to the property
until commencement of this suit The
| Court below dismissed the bill, whereupon
complainant appealed to the Supreme Court
which reversed the decision of the lower
Court. After reviewing the testimony taken
in the Gaze, the decision of the Supreme
| Court says:
not satisfied that deceased was, at the time
| she executed the conveyance. capable of COM
pretending fully the nature and effect of the
| transaction. She was in state of physical
| prostration and from that cause and her pre-
| vious infirmities, aggravated by her sickness,
her intellect was greatly enfeebled, and if not
/ disqualified, she was untitled to attend to
| business OF such importance as the disposition
| OF her entire property ana securing OF an an
nuity for life. Certain 1t Is that in negotiating
| for the disposition of the property she ktoOd.
| in her sickness and infii mites, on no terms OF
/ equality with DEFENDANT mere, VINO. WIN MS
/ attorney and agent, met her alone in her house
/ to obtain the conveyance.
The Court further says:
The principle upon which the Court acts in
/ such cases, in protecting the weak and de-
pendent, may always be invoked ia behalf OF
| persons in the situation of the deceased, a
spinster, In this case OF doubtful sanity, living
| entirely by herself, without friends to take
| care of her, and confined 10 her home by sick
ness. AS well on this ground as on the ground
| of weas ness of mind and gross inadequacy of
consideration, we think the case proper one
/ for interference of equity, and that cancela-
| ton of the deed should De decided.
The Court accordingly reversed the decree
| of the lower Court and remsnded the cause,
with directions to enter a decree for a can
collation. of the deed of deceased and sur
render OF the property TO complainant, but
I without accounting for back rents, improve
ments being taken fJr them. The opinion
was signed by six Justices OF the Supreme
Bench. Justice Field delivered the oplnien.
Twenty Eight Years Absent.
! Norwich Comm Bulletin, June 29.l
Mr.. John r Dawson, of this place, sailed