The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1889-03-12


imnortancs than any Of the questions
on "a, discussed. viz whether taking /
ali the statements of Betty Lewis bill /
10 be true. and taking As true even lhe
,r Dagte afldayits which she has HE'D
which are manifcsily illegal testimony
the plaintiff has shown any just claim to
the property for which she Is SUNG
In this connection Colonel Guy first
noticed the $4,000 which Betty Lewis
chims was given TO her by the dcccdcnt
by giving her his pass-bOok.
lie showed that certain kind of bank
book issued by some savings banks IN
the place Of certificates of deposit, have
been held To be- Sufficient means OF
making "a elf cqUsa morhs But such
books are eQuiyalentto certificates Of de-
p0,it. end must be presented 10 the hank
before money can be- drawn. And he cited
decision of the Supreme Court of
NIassachuSetf. fully explaining the diff
ference between the Savings Bank book
and an ordinary pass book, ana he ar
gued that the pass book ~ THIS case iur-
nishing no means OF drawing the money
from the bank. and not even Of any as,is-
lance i'm drawing money could not, by
its delivery 10 Bette Lewis, pass 10 her
any right to the money IN banh.
He then showed that the decedent
had two separate sets of Keys to the
hoNe. in which his sccuritie, were kept,
and that inasmuch. ~ according to Bet
tie Lewis own statements, he had never
,,iycn her but one set of these keys She
had thereby that sole and exclusive pos
session which is universally laid down
i'm the books as indispensably necessary
to p valid Gift c'psa morts
All that Bette Lewis can claim is that
bv acquiring one set of KEYS she obtain
cd Joint possession with the dccedent.
who never parted with his rights, and
who could at any time after the pretend
ed rift have entered the boxes with the
other SET OF KEYS Then he showed that
although the keys cl by Bette
Lewis would open the s5s7~ claimed to
be given 10 her by means Of the keys, yet
those boxes were deposited in the
vault of the bank which ii was
/ impossible for Bette Lewis To enter
without the permission Of the bank and
/ the written order of William \ Thomas,
so that the keys were themselves wholly
/ insufficient as means of obtaining pos
session of the securities which she claims
were given her And Colonel Guy ar
rued al some length that in these aspects
/ of the case. if the case were now ready
+ for hearing. the plaintiffs bill would
have to be dismissed.
And then he went on 10 argue that the
statute law of this state had now em-
phaticallv denounced as utterly Illegal
and void any such gift as has been set
no and claimed by the plaintiff in her
bin I'm this ease And after citing the
opinions of eminent Judges, deprecatng
Tie dangers attending this class OF gifts,
deprecating the frauds and periur'es OF
which they are likely 10 be prOlinc, ana
even expressing a sense OF the neces-
sify of legislation 10 throw around this
species of gift-sOme protection 10 dying
men from INSCRIPTIONS piliage
and perjury 10 support II -
Lin short. some of the
safeguard, which the Roman law did
throw around gifts ctHsf mortW-such.
for instance, as that they must De proved
hv five credible Witnesses and that they
must extend 10 u very limited portion OF
the decedent's cstale-he cited statute
Of Virginia. which became law IN 800
The statute thus cited IS found IN
section 24l4 OF the Code Of lss', and
reads as follows 80 gift OF any good.
or chattels shall be- valid unless by deed
or will. on unless actual possession shall
have come ID. and remained with the
.douee. or some per son claiming under
him. If the donor and donee reside TO-
.ether az the time OF the gift, possession
do the place of tncir residence, shall moi
bee Is sufficient possession within th'
meaning oi.thi- section.
Colonel Guy conierdcd that in the
Nrhi of this iaw, the plaintiff 8 csaiu
would scarcely bear movements eXami
nation.
THE ONLY POSSESSION
which she pretended TO have ever gotter
10 the decedents estate was purely con
structiyc, and yet the statute to make
valid gift requires possession to be actua
and not constructive.
Furthermore, the plaintiff resided Will
The testatOr at the time OF the ALLEGED
eifi, and they continued 10 reside TO
eether until his death, 80 that whatever
possession she, at any time got. was
possession at the place of their resi-
dence.'
Colonel Guy argued at some length Il
show how fully and how, IN all parucu
lars. the case which Bette Lewis has at
tempted To- SET up falls under the fata
inhibitiOus OF the statute above quoted.
And he said that il there ever was
case that yindicated the wisdom OF on
- statute law, and called tor a stringen
enforcement of its provisions, IL is thi
case of Bette Lewis, who is claiming ih'
whole OF Wm. \ Thomas estate upon
the testimony OF one single witness, an'
that witness not disinterested person
but her own bosom friend and com
paniOn.
After Colnel Guy finished his argu
ment the court adjourned TO meet thi.
morning at II o'clock, when Colone
Gordon will close the argument for th'
claimant