The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1885-02-21

lL.
heirs at law, who will be his own children and
their descendants if be leaves any otherwise, his
brother and sisters and their descendants. No
power is given to apply it to any other purpose, or
to any other parties. The trustee can receive
nothing by means of it which the law recognizes
as pecunary benefit or advantage. The con
tingency of his OUTLYING his six children and their
descendants, and becoming heir-at-law OF TINS son
upon his death, is too remote and improbable to
be taken into consideration. In fact, if contin-
gencies of this character be looked at there Is
more probability that he will lose than gain by
the deed, for more than 100000 of the property
is personally, and this, without the deed, would
have gone to him solely and absolutely in case OF
the sons dying before him intestate and without
issue; whereas, under the deed, it goes in that
event to the heirs-at-law of the son. The deed
interposes between him and any possible chance
of his taking any benefit under it, not only the
sons children and their descendants, but his
younger brother and his sisters and their decend-
ants. 1t fixes no amount of commissions to be
received by the trustee, and whatever commissions
court of equity will allow him for administering
the trust, can be nothing more than would be
given to any stranger who might have been placed
in the same position and the law regards such
commissions as compensation for services rendered,
and not as a benefit granted by the deed. Unless,
then, the broad proposition is established that
man can make voluntary disposition of his estate
except by will only-a proposition which no court
has yet attempted to lay down-it cannot be said
that this deed is prima fucie void. Of course, If
it was obtained by fraud, by undue influence, by
misrepresentation, concealment or deceit,o under
any circumstance which will justify court OF
equity in setting it aside, there should be no hes
itation in annulng it but here as in every other
similar case, the of proof is on the party as
sailing the instrument. and this leads to the in
quiry, does the proof in this record make out
case for that relief?
The complainant in his bill charges, in sub
stance, that the deed was procured from him by
the unlawful abuse, by the defendant, of the in
luence which he possessed and exercised over
him as father and of the confidence he reposed in
him as his confidential legal adviser that to ac
complish his purpose and obtain the deed the de-
PENDANT represented to and advised the complain.
ant that he had power under the will of Mr.. Git
tings to make such disposition of that part of the
estate devised to the children of Mrs. Williams
as he might choose, and that complainant was
dependent upon his pleasure as to the value OF
the part of the estate which complainant should
receive, and threatened that unless compliments
conduct should be satisfactory to him, he would
exercise his power to his loss and detriment;
which construction of the will complainant i'm
pcitly believed to be correct, and did not think
Of seeking legal advice in respect thereto from
any other source; that for the same purpose the
defendant awaited himself of certain circum-
stances in which complainant was then placed, to
represent to him that he stood in great bodily
peril, and urged him, in order to escape it, to
absent himself from the country, and to place his
property and affairs in defendants hands; that he
further represented that unless complainant did
so dispose of his property, there was great risk
and danger Of his losing or being deprived of
large part of his estate, and made use of this rep
resentation as an additional incentive for the
i Ia. e. A. Il. A.
reservations, threats and opportunities were per-
sisted in for long time before they were success
full, complainant resisting them with the hope
that some other means might be found to avoid
the threatened in furious consequences of re-
fusal; but finally the defendant avaled himself of
an occasion when complainant, under great dis
tress of mind brought on by the advice, threats
and opportunities of the defendant, had inGulged
in Intoxicating drinks to such extent as to de-
prive him for the time being of his power to re-
sist these influences, to obtain from him the exc
cution and delivery of the deed, and to induce
him to leave the country in order to escape the
dangers with which defendant alleged he was
and under these circumstances COM
plainant yielded, and executed and delivered the
deed.
The defendant in his answer meets these allega-
tons with an explicit and emphatic denial, and
the proof utterly fails to sustain them. In fact,
there is not particle of testimony, not even that
of the complainant himself, to support most of
these grave charges There is no proof that Mr..
Williams ever threatened to use the power, or
supposed power, contained in the will of Mr..
Cuttings to the detriment of this son unless he
would make over his property to him. On the
contrary, when it was suggested by others that he
should it in order to protect the property from
the sons own imprudence he promptly and firmly
declined saying he would have no inequality
nc ic hat he
ever solicited or requested his to execute this
deed. In fact, the deed was not prepared until
the day of its execution, and the son never saw
his father on that day until after it had been pre-
pared by his own order and direction; and, more
over, the proof is overwhelming that he was per
fectly sober during the entire day. With the
exception of the sons own testimony, which is
wholly unreliable and untruthful in respect to
every controverted fact in the case, there is no
proof that the father requested the son to exc
cute any similar deed of trust whatever. The
father, in his testimony, denies that he ever made
any such request, and in this he is supported by
other witnesses, and by all the surrounding facts
and circumstances. In short, all these charges of
threats, representations and importantly are not
only unsupported by any reliable testimony, but
have been wholly and thoroughly negatived and
disproved and it is manifest that the son, after
attaining his majority, if not before, was not
at times did not even treat him with respect
Much has been said in regard to the mental
condition and capacity of the complainant, and
what the testimony discloses on the subject is
substantially this: In early childhood he suffered
from a severe illness, the permanent effect of
which was a slight paralysis of one side OF his
body, and this made him the object of special in
diligence, care and solicitude on the part of both
his parents. He was hayward, restless, eccentric
and timd. Great pains were taken in his educa-
ton but in intellectual attanments he was inferior
to most young men of his age who may have had
similar or even less educational advantages. But
it is clear that he had sufficient natural capacity
and intelligence to understand fully the force and
effect Of deed like the present, and when sober
was rs capable as men generally are to take care
of his property and make valid contracts in res
pect to its disposition. He had been a clerk in
bis grandfathers bank and collector of the rents
of his large estate. He had, however, contracted
habits of intemperance and dissipation, which
had grown upon him in later years, and when he
was under the influence of liquor was liable to be
imposed upon and cheated. He seems to have
been fully conscious of his infrmity in this res
pect, and as soon as he was entitled to his large
property under his grandfather's will, it became
a favorte and persistent idea with him to place
it beyond his control, so that he could not waste
or souander it. At one time he executed an
absolute deed conveying all his property to his
mother, but his father unwilling that his wife,
who was then in ilI-health should accept such
conveyance or trust, and was furthermore unwilling
that at her death the complainant should be made
dependent for his support upon his brother and
sisters, and he accordingly persuaded him to
cancel and destroy the deed before it was deliver
ed, which he did Shortly before the present
deed was executed he had another prepared, con-
tanning similar trust provisions, but did not exc
cute it. Assuming then, that he was sober, as he
undoubtedly was, at the time it was prepared and
executed, the testimony discloses no ground for
this deed by reason of any want of
capacity on the part of the complainant to COM
prehend its provisions or to understand its bear
ing and effect.
Shortly told, the history of the execution of this
instrument is as follows: On the morning OF the
day it was executed the complainant received
letter from DIR. Riggin Buckler, the purport of
which,wi be stated hereafter. On receiving this
letter he Immediately sought his friend and rela-
tive, Mr.. James G. Cuttings, for advice, and ex-
pressed to him his purpose of making deed OF
trust of his property, reserving to himself only
$500 year, and to go at once to Europe. Git
tings told him to think the matter over quietly,
and when he again spoke of making deed OF
trust Cuttings told him he ought to talk to some
BODY else about that He then went to Mr.. Hor-
WITT, a lawyer of high standing and eminent in
his profession, and told him he had made up his
mind to make a deed of trust of all his property.
Some conversation then ensued as to what he de.