The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-07-10
WHO Is MARSHALL JEWELL
The Supreme Court of the United
States stamps Its Patent of
Sc0uadrel Upon Him-HOw
He Attempted 20 Swim
die an Insane WON
an, and Failed

a GALL Clhm lhnkse, Wnht DOss
Shepherd called Marshall Jewell when he was
in Grants cabinet. His election as chair
man of the national committee, is regarded
by the conservative Republicans here ms pos
tive proof that all Of the Grant leaders Intend
to remain in the background and take no
active part in the campaign. Marshall
Jewell is u grossly inco npetent man for the
place. He is an tgotistical, unpopular, I'm.
tru Gworthy man, who is hated sincerely by
all the Grant people. He is about feet s
inches in height; his head is large, and
well set oil by snowy-white, luxuriant hair,
his complexion is II clear pink-sndwhite /;
his eyes are blue and hshy; his nose small,
straight and red. A snowy-white mustache
and goatee set oil full, red-lipped, sensuous-
lined mouth, that is always ready to smile
and display Mr.. Carker set of shining white
teeth. He is rich, and n would-be aristocrat,
without ability. He was grossly incompe.
tent in the management of the postofiice de-
partment. President Grant demanded his
resignation tor duplcity in the matter of the
Boston postu astership. Jewell, nhen in
llct lNCEbloOu hllilSbll VIGIL ~ Ollo VI
his receptions by having champagne 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 60 to the records Of the supreme
court to find Marshall Jewels character.
Probably no man in public life has ever in
CURED more severe reflections upon his per-
sonal honesty than were passed upon Jewell
by the supreme court of the United States
in the fall Of 1876. In this decision it was
shown that Jewell, by unfair means, got
possession ofthe property Of a poor woman in
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 Aior,
heir-st-law of Mary L. GeAevievs Thibsult
late of Detroit, Mich, to cancel a conveyance
of land alleged to have been obtained from
| her u few weeks before her death, when, from
her condition, she was incapable Of under.
standing the nature and the effect of the
transaction The following extract from the
decision Of the supreme court shows the
nature of he transaction:
Deceased died at Detroit, on the 4th Of
February, aged sixty four years, interstate,
leaving complainant her sole surviving heir
at-law. For many years previous to her death
and until ex cution of the conveyance to de-.
iendan. she was seized in fee of the land in
controversy, situated in that city, which she
occupied as = homestead. In November,
1868, defendant obtained from her convey.
ance of this property.
copy of the conveyance is set forth in
the bill. 1t contains covenants of Seisn and
warranty by grsntor, and Immediately fol-
lowing them an agreement by defendant to
pay her $3.50 upon delivery of the instru-
mept an annuity OF $500, all her physicans
bills during her life, taxes on her property for
that year, and all subsequent taxes during
her life; also that she should have the use
and occupation ofthe house until the spring
of 1864, or that he would pay the rent Ct
such other house as she might occupy until
then. The property was then worth, ac-
cording to the testimony in the case, between
$4,000 and $4,000. The deceased was at
that time between 60 and 70 years of age
and was confined to her house by sickness,
from which she never recovered She lived
alone in state fgrest degradstion, and was
without regular tendance 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 stipu-
lated for was paid, but no other payment
was made to her. She died q few weeks
sfterward. As grounds for canceling con-
veysncs complainant alleges that deceased,
during the last few years of her life, was
afflicted with lunscy or chronic insanity, and
was so inhrm as to be incapable of transact.
ing any business of Importance, that her last
sickness aggravated her insanity; greatly
weakened Ter mental faculties, and still more
disqualified her for business; that defendant
and his agent knew of her inhrmity, aud
that there Was no reasonable prospect Of
her recovery from her sickness OF
of her long surviving when the conveyance
was taken; that she did not understand the
nature Of the instrument and that it was OBJ.
tanned for an Insignificant consideration and
in clandestine manner, without her having
any independent advice. These allegation:
defendant controverts, and AYERS the convey.
snce was taken upon a proposition of de.
ceased; that at the date of its execution she
was IN full possession of her mental faculties
appreciated the value of the property, and
was capable of contracting with reference tc
it and of selingor otherwise dealing with it
that since her death he occupied ard made
permanent improvements to the value of 81,
000,a and that complainant never gave him no
tice of any claim to the property until com.
mencement of this suit The court below
dismissed the bill, whereupon complainant
appealed to the supreme court, which re.
versed the decision of the lower court. Aftel
. reviewing the testimony taken in the case
the decision of the supreme court says: "lr
view of the circumstances stated, we are moi
satisfied that the deceased WAS, at. the time
she executed the conveyance capable of com
pretending fully the nature anC
effect of the transaction. She was il
state of physical probation, and from tina
cause and her previous intirmities, aggravat
by her sickness, her intellect was greatly en-
feebled, and if not disqualified, she was un
fitted to attend to business of such impor
lance as the disposition of her entire prop
erty and securing of an annuity for life
: Certain it is that IN negotiating for the dis
position of her property she stood, in hel
sickness and intirmiti ties, on no terms of equal
i,y with defendant here, who, with his attor
pey and agent, met her alone in her house t,
obtain the conveyance.
The court further says:
The principle upon which the court acts il
such cases, of protecting the weak and de
pendent, may always be invoked on behal
8 of persons in the situation of the deceased,
,, spinster, in this case of doubtful sanity, liv
ing entirely by herself, without friends t
4 take care of her, and confined to her home b,
sickness. As well on this ground as on tn
ground of weakness of mind and gross mad