The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-01-05
DE ARNAUD DOVNED.
Miss Mary A. Poets Wins
Her Contest Against the
Bogus Veteran Count.
HE MUST RETURN HER DEEDS
Vice Chancellor Pitney Administers
Scathing Rebuke in Civ
ing His Decision.

On no occasion since the Court OF
CnancerT has been located in this city
have the chambers been so crowded with
lawyers as they were this morning when
vice Chancellor Pitney delivered his
opinion in the now celebrated case Of
Mary A. Peet against Charles A. De Ar
maud, who claimed to be a
French count. The case was to
obtain possession Of some valuable
property which De Arnaud got into his
possession through false representations
and transferred to his wife. De Armand
claimed to be a veteran Of the war aud
was indicted BY the United States Grand
Jury When this matter was made pub
lie De Arnaud began suits for libel against
certain newspapers.
IheNice Chancellor in the course Of
his decision look occasion to denouncs
De Arnaud in the vigorous pithv man
ner Tor which he is noted throughout the
State. be said that it appeared by De
Arnaud's own testimony as well as the
convincing proof produced by the CON-
plalnant that De Armand was something
quite different from what he pretended
70 be and was person capable OF the
fraud he is charged with. From his ap-
pearance aud manner on tue sfaud he
showed that he had enough ulausibiliry
and address to be dangerous TO a weak
woman like the complainant. The Vice
Chancellor then went over the points Of
the case and showed how Miss Peet. Of
" asnlngton, owned twenty-five lots at
Orange which she had inherited from her
father and which she had never seen. and
which she supposed were 25xIOo feet. As
The taxes and assessments began to roll
np asain on the property Miss
6ea' ne Ares2a expressed an a., desire 70
Accordingly De Aruaud andihis wife tod
Miss Peat that he could get $40 a piece
for the lots from a purchaser In Rufber-
ford and agreed 10 dispose of them for
fee of s. per lot. Miss Peat alleged that
De Arnaud represented that the lots were
not worth much and she sold him the
property for S1.040. It appears that the
lots were o0xlOO and that De Arnaud
knew that fact, but kept it from Miss
PeeE- he then sold the lots To Mr.
Lowry. of Rutherford, for 500 lot.
Learning of these facts through Mr..
Addison Ely, of Rutherford, MISS perr
began suit IN ehancery to have the con-
veyances to De Arnaud and Lowry SET
aside
When on the stand last summer De Ar
maud claimed TO have served on Geueral
Fremont's staff and TO have COMMANDED
the Fifth Missouri Rifles during the war.
He said also that he was a mem Der Of Kit
Carson Post and count having large
possessions in Europe Miss Peeis'
counsel secured evidence to show
tnRt the commander OF the
Fifth Masonic Rifles during the
the war was Alfred De Armand. who is
now living at Hot Springs, Ark. By false
pretenses he obtained admission to Kit
Carson Post and applied for a pension.
When this testimony was brought 70 the
attention of General Boynton at Wash
ington he secured de Arnaud's indict-
ment for attempting 20 defraud the
Government After reviewing these
facts, the Vice Chancellor said
81 place no reliance whatever upon De
Arnaud's testimony. IL is entirely worth
less He took the opportunity to deceive
Miss Peet BY purchasing at grossly in
adequate sum valuable property which
he represented 10 be of small value I
have a letter in support of some
statements made by De Armand from
General Burbridge about the lots. but as
the General was not examined there is
only the letter. There is nothing against
the General except his intimacy with De
Arnaud have no doubt that By his won-
derful plausIbility ne has deceived GEN
eral Burbridge in this matter.
From the whole evidence Of the case
the compartments equity against the
defendant is clear. Colonel De Arnaud's
story about the payment of money by his
wife is groIesQuely absurd He
says he sold some Russia bonds at
Washington TO make the purchase from
Miss Peet. The bankers have sworn that
no such transaction took place. / think
Mrs. Susan De Armand was cognizant OF
the transaction of her husband, and con-
fraud"
The plaintiff was awarded a decree.