Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1889-12-30

Judge Fell On Saturday rendered the
decition OF the Court OF Common Pleas,
NO z, Philadelphia refusing to Mrs.
Mary u. Tasker Bristor the privilege of
receiving back property which sbe decided
IN trust 10 Thomas I. Tasker, her grand.
father.
lie ore Misc Tasker was married to
Eev. George X. Bristur. a MethoIi, At
preacher, whose conduct while pastor If
churches In New Orleans aud Newark
gave tiso TO serious scandals, she zee led
her property in trust to her grandfather
Tor the btuent OF any children which
might be born TO her. Miss Tasker, who
was married to Mr.. Bilster about a year
afterwards, and VINO bAs since then be-
come the mother OF iour children, Mary
L., Gsoiee G., William O. aud Maria.
retta q. Blistor, claims now that she was
Induced TO sign the deed through the
so1citstions OF her mother, Mrs. Rebecca
lAsker. The reasons advanced which
Induced Miss Mary TaSker to sign wAs
that II she signed such a decd her sistsr
Caroline would sign Que of the same
kind, the family Wishing to protect Miss
Tabkers sister, Mrs. Frank T.. Camp,
from the speudthriit propsnsities OF her
husband. When Mary 1asker signed the
deed which placed all of her property
In the bands of her grandfather In trust
Tor the possibly prospective children.
Mrs. Camp also signed the deed prepared
| for her.
1t Is now legged by Mrs. BrIstor, that
there was mis- AXE made In drawing up
the Geeds. 1t was understood thst in the
deed prepared for Mis-. Camp there
should not be included the clause giving
her power subsequently to revoke the
deed, while such q clause was to be in
cludtd IN the one prepared for Mrs. Bris-
tors signature. The olerA who copied
tue deeds made them both alike and Mrs.
bristor signed the one prepared ior her
without discovering that tho deed was
one In which she was not preserving her
right OF revocation.
When the application OF Mrs. Brlstor
came before the court ia March last for
the reconveyance OF the property, 1t was
seen that she had brought her suit in
equity, naming her grandfather and her
husband as de endauts. Their answers
acknowledged the truth of all tho state.
Inents made by Mrs. Bristor In reference
TO the matter.
"Ihis seems to be very plain calling"
said Judge Hare at the time of the ap-
plication, "but there are children here
who seem to require the protection of the
Court"
After hearing argument IL the case,
the Court refused to render any decision
unless guardian was appointed who
could appear to protect tie childrens In
ter, cts. The West Philadelphia Title
and Trust Company was subsequently,
appointed such guardian, and alter the
matter had been explained to Its law
officer that company answered that It saw
no reason why the request OF Mrs. Bristor
should not be granted.
The decision In the case Saturday
morning refusing Mira. Bristor's pension,
which was verbal was based upon the
fact that even II the Common Pleas
Court would allow II the deed Of trust
would slways remain u blot upon the
title TO the property. and that the ,peed-
lest way TO get good title would TO
refuse the petition and allow the matter
10 DO taken up TO the Supreme Court for
final determination,