The Sunday morning news. [volume] (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1886-1891, 1890-01-19
MOTHER AGAINST SON.
Strange Facts in the His
tory Of the Martling
Contest.
ALL ABOUT A Burned WILL.
Stolen Deeds TO Play a Prominent
Part in a Bergen County
Romance.

One of the most interesting OF the
family histories that have come to the
surface lately is that which was uncov-
cred in ChaneerF Chambers in the First
National Bank one day last week
In the suit Of Marfling against Martling.
The proceedings are instituted by q
mother against her son, and her grand
son is conspicuous figure against his
father. Il involves the burning of a viii
made by Mrs MARKINGS husband prior
to his death. and the alleged theft Of
deeds made by her as substitute to the
DESTROYED will is the basis of her suit.
The plaintiff mother is Mrs. Elizabeth
Martling, of RidgefieId, Bergen county;
the defendant is her son David. The
grandson, who is espousing his rich
grandma's cause against his father, is
Abraham Maruling. Mrs. Matling's son,
Stephen H., and her daughter, Mrs. Anna
come Of the suit, but do not figure as par
ties to the record
A BURNED WILL.
When old Mr.. Martling-husband OF
the plaintiff in the case-died some years
ago he left Will dividing his property in
Ridgefield between his children David
was given the largest slice OF the prep
Abraham, should have one-fourth of the
whole property. David wanted present
interest in the property, and induced his
mother to burn the will. That the stdtgs
quo might be preserved as nearly as posi-
bic to the directions of the Will. Mrs.
Martling made number of deeds part
tioning the property There was some
hesitation about doing so, because Abra-
ham was everything but dutiful son,
and the old lady insisted on protecting
him. SO she bar0ained with David that,
If Abraham would change his attitude
toward his father. David should convey
the property to the son in accordance
with old Mr. Martlng's testamentary
directions
Upon the basis Of this understanding
Mrs. Martling made the deeds without
consulting the rest of her children, put
them in box, of which she alone had the
key, and gave the box into David's hands
to be deposited for safe keeping in the
vaults of the Hudson County Bank
THEFT OF THE DEEDS.
David, though the deed which mad been
made in his favor had not been put on
record, assumed that the property was as
good as his, and went TO work improving
it at considerable expense. The old lady
subsequently made known to her other
children the fact Of the signing of the
deeds and there was war at once. Then
she wanted David to return the deeds TO
her, but he refused. She went to the
bank and called for the box containing
them. This was refused her inasmuch as
David had teIephoned the cashier 70 re
tain possession of the box; aad, as il had
been deposited il his pame fhe bank, had
no other course TO pursr@.
Later ON he seut clerk Il the bank and
got the box, which was afterwards
broken open by David in a hardware
store, and he extracted the deeds made to
him and immediately placed the same on
record in the office of the County Clerk
of Bergen. David alleged as his excuse
for doing this that the property conveyed
to him had been improved BY him to the
extent OF "a, 500.
FATHER VS.. son.
So far as David and Abraham are con-
ceFned, the son appears to have become
suspicious that his father was designing
to cheat him ont of his property IN re-
taliatioD for quarrels that had previously
taken place between them. On the other
hand the father claims that he only de-
sired to prevent the son from throwing
up TO HIM before his death that he was
merely a tenant on his (the sons pro-
perty.
The son has become greatly embittered
against the father, and has industriCusly
circulated exaggerated and unsubstan-
fiated reports concerning his fathers
rascality, and his conduct in the court
during the trial, especially his more than
assiduous attention to his rich grand
MAJ is commented upon unfavorably by
nearly all who have witnessed his actions
The testimony is nll in, and the argu-
ments will be heard on April 20.