Omaha daily bee., 1892-04-10
WON BY THE COBLE MINORS
Judge Hopewell Decides the Case of Father
Williams vs. ]. ]. O'Connor.
UNCOMPROMISlNG ENEMY OF FRAUD
Deeo Sci Aside by the Court and the At
torney Severely Reprimanded-Story
OF the Case-Other Court
Matters.
DNCOMPR0MISlNG ENEMY OF FRAUD

The somewhat sensational case of Allen
ana Gertrude Goble. by their guardian, Rev
! 'ohn Williams, against John j. O'Conner,
executor, was disposed of by Judge Hopewell
yesterday.
! Inc petition sets forth that the plaintiffs
| were minors, and that by an order of court
'he executor mortgaged the property for the
sum OF $4,000. Later on he conniyed with
Partles to have the mortgage foreclosed and
oIered Mcfarland Il Saunders large sum
Oh money II they would not bid on the prop.
erty when it was sold by tho sheriff tn
satlsiy the mortgage. The property was
soia and bid in by O'Connor he paving
So,oo6 for the same Mcfarland g. Saunders
testihed that If the sale had been honestly
a and talrly mad made the property would have
Drought 81 900 more
Suit was brought to set the sale aside H.
being charged that fraud entered into the
transaction. '"'o 'n'
r, Today in handing down his decision, Judge
Hopewell said: 'NNe'
Decision OF the Court,
,dt II dsoG Is fGoncIuslyely proven by plaintiffs and
hE' mo- os ueniSd Dy defendant though witness In
dicial sale where the property of minor piaint-
ms ims Was sold by the order of the court Induced
competing bidder to desist and retire from
desends as nSa and paid him 500 SO to do that the
nHroha han.' s' yonh d. oConnor, then became the
over the bid made by McFarianaa az ah0e oi !"
court to sctre ~ seares no good Purpose for the
matters matters developed in tho trial. have not
wnu,a i,nue practice Of this. and will not but
unnoticed some features IN this case Tbs
in tn ne. OF me TWO attorneys is Ieprehensibe
Mhat Is the situation?
oi,icerys a, are lawyers OF ability and experience
To- exnect 0I ms court The judge has the right
then Their duty at ali tines times to o"I aid j. tbs
it1aani h1 IN his e2deayors to deal Justly be tween
court TO which one OF them is !, Marty and
itors, ninn,p ,ne prosperity Of unfortunate cred
forced sale we find them consnri isP9sea iS 9i AZ
tns sne one giving and the other receiving money
tition and IMPRESS PURPOSE Of preventing compe-
the ,h ptoperty Tor less than It's value and less
.h"n II would otherwise have sold for Lnns tss
mildest name possible the transactiop' s"o
verely W ''A'ureu 100 Sc
The Sale Set Aside.
nine me aTnty Thy OF the court In the premises IS
H; %a'h here can De no question as TO the law
Inc authorities are all one way, and the sr
must must, pe set set aside Nor does the defendant's
sist that IL should be upon terms tbar VII lmI
protect the defendant TO the extent OF the the
premises. upon the |
,u unSSon6tediy IND u Is the law that an innocent
AZ VOID judicial sale will be pro- |
tected by the courts of equity TO the extent ", |
ms purchase p ,i money. But whap is the rule |
srahs nere % the purchaser Is not innocent of the
the ! contrary 1t Is his fraudulent act that rem
aers the sale void. Will he be protectedF That |
Is the question here and il must be answeredJ u
In the negative. 'uN
An incorporating Enemy of Fraud.
court OF equity Is the uncompromIsino
enemy OF frand In all OF its forms. Ii de.
.s, IN protecting the Innocent and the weak
aEaihst oppression. but it viii not stretch |
@ @lorth its arms To save party from the conse- |
lashees OF his own fraudulent act
The defendant in this case was ths actor !