Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-01-05
SHED HIS FATHER-IN-LAw.
A Young Man who wanted Half o.
Lucrative Business.

A Baltimore special says: About two years
ago ErneQ Fleischman, formerly Of New
York, married a daughter OF Albert Gott-
Schalk. a prominent wholesale hquOr-dealer
OF Baltimore. To-day. IN the City Court,
Judge Stewart decided tho SUIT OF the
son.in.iaw sgalnst the fatber.lnlaw as
q partner IN business for profits OF
the business. Fleischman alleged that soon
after be became engaged 10 be married 10
Gottschalk's daughter the defendant induced
him 70 give mp lucrative business 10 New
York md come to Baltimore, promising him
a full share in the liquor business when the
couple were married. After be was mar
red, he declares, his iatber-n-lsw permitted
him to sign the tirm.name and introduced
him 10 the banks as q me noer OF the urn;
that after being in business year bis father.
in-law only allowed him a per cent. OF the
profits as his share.
He protested that such was not the agree
ment between them, but his iather-in.law
begced him 10 remain and he would Dur.
chase a brewry and give him an interest
in II. The brewery was purchased, but the
plaintiff did not receive an interest in It,.
ON the contrary. his income from the firm
was limited to $3.50 per month, and during
the absence Of the plaintiff from the city his
authority TO sign the irm-nsme was re-
Voked. His father-in.lsw, he further de-
clares, asked him 10 sign a paper to accept
10 per cent. in profits IN lieu OF salary, and
when be refused he WAS requested 10 cease
all further participation in the business OF
the firm.
The defendant denied the allegations,
stating that be only gave the plaintiff EN-
ployment because Of bis lack OF means and
from his affection for bis daughter. he feel
ing bound 10 take care OF her and incident
ally OF her husband.
Judge stewart in his opinion saws
.'It would seem natural that an attractive
Young lady with whom the plaintiff fell IN
love on & first or second visit would not
want for suitors, especially II her fsther had
the reputation OF having an income OF nearly
Sl0O, 600 year, and it's not likely the de-
PENDANT would seek for husband for his
daughter. even II the lady herself were not
10 be consulted. n person whom he had never
seen and whose father was onlv known Ia
him Al foreman In his brothers distillery
some fifteen years before" The Judge, IN
eOncluding, said:
al less worthy motive than the love he
protested for the lady induced the plaintiff "a
ask her hand in marriage it Is greatly 10 be
regretted. II his cousin, who acted for him,
told hlm the exuavsgsnt tale be relates. and
he was induced 10 marry through sordid
motives, it Is a great pity. as IN such cases
the disappointed party very rarely obtains
either respect or sympathy from the eommu'
uiiy."
The Judge ends il unreasonable that II
should beexpected that with a business Of
S50, 0e0 a year, with two sons aud another
daughter besides the plaintiffs wife, The
Court should beiieve II was ever stipulated
that the plaintiff should be admitted a ful
partner with an equal share Of the profits,
lie inds instead that the plaintiff Is entitled
10 = per cent. 81 the profits. less such SUI
paid him on account from july l. 1855, until
he lets toe firm Ia September, 1857, wbiet
account will be stE.e5 bY 40 auditor.