The morning call., 1892-03-12
In A SPIRIT OF REPRISAL.
Counselor Clarke BambOOzled by
His SOn-in.LaW.
An Effort Made to Reopen Litigation Which
Was Compromised Nearly Five
Years Ago.

Counselor" Alfred Clarke aired his
grievances yesterday against his son-in-law,
Frederick Nittram. before Judge Levy and
read the affidavit filed a few days ago in sup.
port of motion to reopen litigation dis
missed on compromise and involving some
$4,000, money borrowed by Wittram. Mr..
Clarke charged Wi,ham with deception in
the procuring of the dismissal on the pre-
tense that he was insolvent five years ago.
when the compromise was effected, and tina,
he concealed some of his landed assets, par
ticularly property ia San Bernardino
County.
Mr.. Wittram, through his counsel. Mr..
L. r. Dunno, strenuously resisted the mo-
ton and presented counter affidayits. The
principal one was By himself, aud denied
that he fraudulently obtained the dismis sal.
but asserted that it was on conditions which
originated with Mr.. Clarke, while the Others
were by the brother. Charles Wi ttram, and
the son Frederick Wittram Jr., cOrroborat-
ing the main facts. Said the alta MT "The
relations between them from the year 1S6 Z
to 1887 were not OF the most friendly char
acter or otherwise than conventionally
friendly, arising out of the circumstance
that the defendant had married plaintiff
stepdaughter. There was no relation OF
trust or implicit confidence or any relation
OF trust. except that defendant unfortu-
nately owed money at generous rates of in
terest to the plaintiff, who does not loan
money on mere trust or implicit confidence"
THE INDEBTEDNESS.
The affiant showed that the indebtedness
for which the dismissal and discharge Is
now sought TO be set aside VAS closed up
nearly five years ago, and that for the in
debtedDesS of S1S.C00 Clarke offered 10 and
did take the fresno property. yet in April
1857, had under attachment his residence al
23l9 California street, valued at $1,000 and
this Fresno property, and knew of addi-
tiOnal assets in Wittram's factory OF slate
erasers further valued at $4,000 and a
policy of insurance for $4,000
He (meaning the affiant was simply
passive; the settlement Nas OF the plaintiff
making and was simply acceded to by de.
fendant for the purpose of terminating theil
relations" declared the affidavit, denying
also that the maker owned or concealed the
1860 acres In San BernardiDo or that he had
more than half that quantity, valued at s.
PER acre. III state Of nature-uncultl-
waited. remote and unsettled" This owner
ship OF the half was made over on a yerba
promise, and this land was actually sold fol
taxes and bought IN by the State for about
SIS.
ONLY AS A TRUST.
Wittram admits that he had the title Ia his
name, but only as trust for the real owner,
10 whom he had conveyed four months be-
fore the said suit of Clarke. The deciding
back was in November 1887. and recorded
in December and, at that time more than
four years ago, Clarke had not only con-
siructye, but actual notice and knowledge
OF the same. But, however considered, this
San BeTnardino land was not an element in
any way in the settlement with Clarke.
The latter offered and, in fact, took the
Fresno land in full satisfaction and executed
release in full and delivered ii. AT the
same time Clarke told him that the notes
representing the Indebtedness were at his
Office and he would surrender them If
Nittram would call next day and first sign
an acknowledgment that Clarke's calcutta
ton OF the amount of indebtedness aud in
terest was correct. The defendant refused
so that the notes were never given up, and
for keeping them Wittram says that in g
spirit Of reprisal lie kept the tax title out
standing 10 the Fresno property and thus
balm bOoZed his fatber-in-law.
Judge Levy took the matter under advise.
ment until Friday.