New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-12-11
KEEPING Ills CLIENTS MONEY.
c. B. SMITH HELD TO AN ACCOUNTING.

RESULTS OF LITIGATION OVER E. p. CHRfsrrS
EsTArE-A DEFAULT OF ABOUT $4,000.
Edwin P. Christy, the founder OF negro
minstrelsy died in May 1862 After his death an In
purporting to be his will by which his entire
estate was given to called Mary Miller. In ex-
clusion Of his wife and children, was offered Tor
probate and admitted by Surrogate Tucker.
An appeal taken from the decree admitting the wiz
to probate and the General Term Of the Supreme Court
in 1866 held that the paper 'sas void Mr. Christy's
children had died In the meantime, and his estate, both
rea and personal, which valued at 100000 and
actually realized S124990 81. thus became vested In
his widow, Harriet K. Chrsty Mrs. Chrsty's lawyers
in the will contest were Benjamin Blankmsn, Samuel
Jones and Charles Smith The real estate CON
sisted of four lots in Grsndst, NewYork aud certain
Brooklyn and the close of the will Mrs.
Chrtsty had executed four mortgages
these lots one 10 Mary Roystan for $4,000
In settlement OF the will contest, TO Mr. Blankman
for legal services K Smith for $4,000 for legal
services, and the fourth to K Smith for $4,000 in
tended Samuel Jones, also for legal services There
also a mortgage James H. Casey for $50 80.
Mr. Chrsty had left debts, and the only ncnnbranco
the estate at this time that caused by the
expense Of the will contest, which amounted TO
$5S,570 So
One OF Mr. Christy's children E. Byron Chrsty 1t was
alleged, had left viii. The probate Of this, which was
sferward known the Abbey Will" contested by
Mrs. Chrisy and the Surrogate rejected the General
Term affirming his decision. Mrs Christy had become
dissatisfied with Mr.. Blankman whom she had employed
attorney in the former litigation, and she
retained In the Abbey will contest G. cambridge
Smith, of No 1I5 Broadway. G. B. smith also
began action for Mrs. Christy against Mr. Blsnkman
aside the mortgage for $4,000 which he had OBJ
tanned for services in the Christy will contest. Mr..
Bankman the attack, and became the attorney
Of Eliza A. Bree, the prepayment Of the Abbey WILL who
claimed under it the one-haf part OF the estate OF D.
Byron Chrsty the son of Edwin Chrsty In september,
1867 Mrs Chrisy and Mrs. Breek induced TO enter
into a compromise the result of which was that Mrs.
Chrsty received only OF the four lots In Grandst,
and assumed the $3.50 mortgage.
One lot conveyed to CK Smith, the attorney free
and clear. The remaining two lots were conyeyedto
Mr. Biankman, who assumed the payment of the two
$4,000 mortgages. The lots in Brooklyn in the mean
time had been conveyed TO DR.. Rogers and another
doctor payment OF their services experts in the
Chrsty will contest Mrs. Breek who upon the probate
OF the f. Byron Christy WILL entitled to two OF the
Grant-s lots ana also to obtain personal property re.
leased all her interest in the estate without any conside-
ration though Mr.. Bankman afterward paid her $4,000
In July, 1869, Mrs. Chrstys Grandst. lot was sold,
c. B. Smith representing her at the sale c. b. Smith
deposited the day OF the sale S3lo55 30, and in
formed Mrs Christy according testimony taken IN
subsequent suit thai after making certain payment he
had left ia his hands from the proceeds Of the sale
S29 600 About this time Mrs. Breek began action
against one Of the attorneys, K Smith, TO compel him
received by him from the estate beyond what might be
the reasonable value OF his legal services Mira. Chrsty
would not did not join with Mrs Breek as plaintiff,
and was therefore made nominal defendant though tho
suit was for her benefit. G. b. Smith appeared
in this suit for Mrs. Christy and X.
Smith and Mrs Christy Ia made to assume a petition
hostile to that OF Mrs Breek. Mrs Christy made oth TO
to the complaint, In which she alleges that
nothing was due her from c. K smith. Size was very
ignorant woman, not being able even to write her )wn
name. Mrs. Breek haS C. K smith arrested In her int'
n n Sfnirb in orfleP tD
Gated used all av sworn TO by Mrs Chrsty In wfic1
she denounces the l.. T. Chrsty or Abbey Will the sams
will which has previously contested and then con-
have admitted to probael though D so DONG
s Mr BeeR was defeated in the suit against C smith
Mrs Cbrsty died in June, 1870, not having received
from c. b. smith. she employed, not long before her
DEATH Daniel Brdssll to collect what was coming TO
that owed Mrs. Chrsty about $4,000, aud that he
mad invested e Sns 70 Ss aoS Ms az ' VIII an
had his client and friend. william A. Keeltas named as
8 and her grandson f6ey were under
age she died and utterly destitute There was not
! aersl. One of the granddaughters appelet to Mr.
smirh for assistance showing nin her worn oGt shoes
dr Smith gave her few dollars now aIIa then sne
then applied to Mr. Keteltas the executor telling nm
declined render any assistance himself or TO compel
Mr smith to pay what he owed the estate Mr bra,aii
executor for an accounting me account hcd Dy tne
HnstoS -" some Old tTaos of tue value OF the
aeconnt was prepared In the law office OF C. b. Smith.
| Ira shafer as attorney for tho grandchildren OF
| and charged that C. Il. Smith indebted TO Mrs.
Cbrsty al the time OF her death in the OF $4,000,
aud he had conspred with the executor to defraud
| the estate. -.
Tne matter was referred TO Rufus F. Andrews, but
while the re ference still pending the executor Mr.
Keteltas died M shaer then brought suit AGAINST =.
OF Mr. keoitas, 20 recover the money asserted 20
naFe been appropriated by c. b. Smith. III. smith, IN
Keteas to slraud Mr. Chrstys estate, but he did moo
DENY that he was indebted Mrs Chrsty her death.
He pleaded the statGte OF limitations On account or
latter plea Mr. Snafef DISCONTINUED us SAT- ana pe-
gan a new against The executors OF MI heteItad
alone the ground that MI heteltas had oeen
guilty of gross neglect In not collecting from C. B smith
what he owed he Cbrsty The was tired De-
Judge The attorney cS the defendant n-
formed Mr. smith OF the charges aud askedm 70 DC pres
ent ut the and them he could; ph Mr. oiDtn
did appear. Judge Bosworth, In August leSo gave
decision against the defendant for S3o2Jo 30 Inc de
PENDANT Appealed but, before argument cod DC nao,
Justice Lawrence, ON AN aidavlt OF Mr. smith auesu$
newly discovered evidence, granted stay or proceen
ngs aud order 10 show cause why new trial soua
not granted The question OF new trial was reierrea
10 ex,Judge before whom the trial was nao
Judge BOswOrth filed yesterday his report IN
which he finds that the defendants are not eIted 10
trial. and Justice Lawrence granted an oruer aCr
ceived $3S, 900 instead or S29,OOO OF afs Cnrstys
money and dissllows numerous items OF disbursements
asserted 10 have been made by Mr.. smith Evidence
was produced before Judge Bosworh TO prove that the
vouchers these disbursements were torgerss u o.
Smith declares that he only received SsS,oov tsom .S
her account death 21 $50 49, and that the
remainder was sufficient TO pay his reasonable ices
for legal services. He denies that ne ever t9d MI
estate $4,000 that after her death had ever
asserted that he indebted to the estate In any
amount. Judge BOs worth finds that Mr. Suths state
ment Is not to credited against that OF Mr. Brdsa