Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-12-22
NON-SUITED.
A Case Which Involved the
Washington Gardens.
JUDGE W. P. wADE's DECISION
The Title of the Property Is Vested
in the Name OF David V.
Waldr0n.

There was tried on Friday last, before
Department of the Superior Court, the
case of Mary Flashner, by her guardian,
against our we'll known fellow-citizsn,
David V. Waldron, involving the title OF
the Washington gardens property, valued
at about $l25 900. The case was an in
teresting one, as it shows very clearly
that one in possession of property ever 30
long may be called upon to defend his
title. This property belonged to Marcus
Flashner, who died, leaving as his only
heirs his wife (who subsequently married
a Mr.. Matfeld) and Mary Flashner, an
only child, who from an accident received
in infancy lost her mind, and was subse-
quently declared an incompetent by our
courts. Mr.. Flashner died about 1859,
and his widow finding the property now
known as the Washington garden tract
unproductive, sought to sell it. This che
did in 1868 to Mr.. Waldron for $4,000,
which was considered very high price
for the property at the time. In order to
get clear title. certain court proceedings
were had in the court to provide
for the sale of Mary Flashner's
interest. Her uncle. Geo. King,
was appointed by the court to
sell her interest in this property,
The price was agreed upon and the sale
confirmed by the Court, and MIR. King
was by the Court named as trustee to
make the sale and receive the interest OF
bis ward. This he attended to. He re-
ceived the money for this child and Mrs.
Flashner, now Mrs. Matdeld, received
hers. Many years elapsed, MIR. Waldron
all the time feeling assured that his
title was good and knowing that he had
bought the property in good faith and
paid a good price for it. Some years
ago there were mutterings as to his title,
and suit was instituted by Mrs. Gath
arine Waldron, who then held the fee
against Mary Flashner to quiet title.
J1dse Brunson acted in that suit for
Mrs. Waldron, and this child was repre-
sented by Mr.. Hartman, then a we'll
known member of the bar, who was ap-
ad kbun. The case was fully and fairly
tried, and resulted, as might have been
expected, in q Judgment quieting the
title, and declaring that Mary Flashner
had no interest therein.
This would have been thought to have
ended the matter, but lately suit was
brought in the interests OF Mary Flash
ner, this imbecile, to secure the prop
erty, She acted through guardian.
and Messrs. Graf, Gibbon & Creighton
were her attorneys. Mr.. Waldron was
represented by Smith, Wilson & Smith.
The case was opened for trial on Friday,
and Mr.. Waldron had in attendance a
long array of our old residents as wit
nesses, in his favor, and his attorneys
were prepared to meet any case that
could be advanced by the plaintiff, but
no case was developed against him at all,
and upon the close of the plaintiffs testi-
mony and without putting the defend.
ant on any proof, the Court,
on the motion of Mr.. Waldron's attorneys,
decided that the case should be
dismissed. All the equities of the case
were in favor of Mr.. Waldron, and we
are glad of the resnit. He paid
for the property and paid it's full worth,
owned it adverse to the world for over
twenty years, and it would have been a
hardship indeed had any other decision
been made. Judge Wade followed the
jurisprudence of the State, which is we'll
settled that the title of property can bs
auieted as against minor or imbecile.
and that the disabilities of the law made
for their protection should be thus used
only, and not as means of oppression
to others. We congratulate Mr.. Waldron
On the result, He is we'll known and
we'll liked; has the confidence of all our
people, and his friends extend to him
their we'll wishes.