The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1890-05-21
MRS. PARNELL's PROPERTY.
A Philadelphia Decision which will Re
store Her Income.
Special to the Jersey city Nelcs.

store Her Income.
Special to the JERSEY CITY Nelvs
PHILADELPHIA, May 81, 1890 Master in
Chancery Thomas j. Worrell yesterday
reported to Court of Common Pleas. No.
8, that the speculaticns in stocks which
have Impoverished Mrs. Della 4. Stewart
Parnell, mother of the famous Irish
leader, were not gambling transactions,
and that even If they were her blood rela-
tive and legal enemy, Edward L. Stewart,
had no standing in u Court of Equity to
make the charges against her.
Should the Court confirm the report
and decision Of the Master it will put
upon Mr. Stewart, who began the equity
proceedings, all the cost of them and end
in the dismissal of Mr.. Stewards bill.
The bill which would thus summarily be
disposed of was filed by Mr.. Stewart as
the administrator of Miss Charlotte
Smith. In it Mr.. Stewart made the aIle-
CATION that Miss Smith had in 1876 given
to Mrs. Parnell $4 1888 in cash to invest
and manage for her, but that when called
upon to return the money or render an
accounting, she refused, with the bold
statement that the money was better in
her hands than in those of Miss Smith
Edward l.. Stewart, who figures as the
plaintiff in these equity proceedings is a
natural son OF Commodore Stewart, the
father of Mrs. Parnell. Mrs Parnell IS
the legitimate daughter of the Commo-
dore. and consequently half sister to Mr..
Stewart, whose name was Smith until it
was changed by an Act of the New Jer-
sey Legislature. Charlotte Smith was his
full sister, both being children of Mrs
Smith, who had been for many years
housekeeper for Commodore Stewart a5
Bordentown, N. j. Charlotte chose to
retain the name of her mother until her
death.
Summing up the case the Master in
Chancery says:--'The defendant is asked
to explain what became of S4,53S. She
does it by saying that $2,646.02 were lost
in speculations IN stocks, authorized by
Miss Smith, and that the rest, 81 ,S91. 60
was paid back in instalments, principal
and interest. Both of these facts are
fully proven. The plaintiff replies that
the defendant is est0pped from setting
up that the money was lost by reason of
her representations that after the date
when it is said to have been lost secur-
reply to this is thar Miss Smith did not
act in the faith of any such representa-
tions and the doctrine of estoppeI has no
application whatever.
ssThe plaintiff further sets up that the
defendant ought to be compelled to pay
the money over again because it was lost
in gambling. The reply to that is that
the transactions were not gambling
transactions, either under Pennsylvania
law or New York law, and that even If
they were the plaintiff in such case has
no standing in court of equity. And it
is further ordered that the bill be dis
missed and that all costs be paid by the
plaintiff"
Pending the decision Of this case Mrs.
Parnell's property in this city. consisting
of Nos. 265, 267 and 269 South Tenth
street, and Nos. 800, OIL, 913 ana 915
Pryor's Alley, has been tied up by a
foreign attachment and, so far as Mrs
Parnell has been concerned, has been inn
productive. Should the court finally take