Los Angeles herald., 1892-01-09

Judge Van Dyke yesterday handed
down his decision in the case of Field
vs.. Shorb ct al, which was tried in
department four several months ago.
The plaintiff in the suit was the pub
lie administrator, and the defendants
DIR. A. S. Shorb and his wife. The action
was brought on the part of the heirs Of
Daniel J. Harris for the recovery of
about $50, 900, alleged to have been OBJ
tanned by the Shorbs by the exercise of
undue influence over Harris. Several
weeks were occupied in hearing evil
dence and argument, the case being
finally submitted to the jury on special
issues.
On the part of the plaintiff it was
maintained that DIR. Shorb, who at
tended Harris during his last illness,
took advantage of the confidence re-
posed in him by the patient, and
that he and his wife induced
Harris, who was claimed to be
of unsound mind, to give them large
sums of money. The money was alleged
to have been obtained at different times,
$500 check passing into their hands at
one time. $12S8.25 being another INSTALL
ment and at the same time certificate
of deposit for $25.000 changed hands.
The defendants claimed that these
amounts were gifts from Harris, who,
when he presented the checks, ETC., said
he had no one else to whom to give
his money. They denied that they in
fuenced him in any way.
Nine questions were submitted to the
jury. In answer the jury stated the re-
lations of the deceased and the defend
ants were confidential, and that Harris's
mind was unsound during his last i'll
ness, and therefore he was not in con-
dtion to transact business. They found
that the $500 check was gift to Mrs.
Matte l.. Shorb, and no answer was
made regarding the check for $l2S8. 25.
The jury also found that the $25. 1000 GER
tificate was not gift.
In sustaining the verdict OF the jury
the court said:
The inference from these answers is
that the endorsement and delivery of
the certificate of deposit and the signing
of the check for $l298s Is on the 3rd day
of July, were the result of undue ia
fuence exercised upon the said Harris
by defendants Shorbs. This is the only
conclusion that will harmonic with
the other answers of the Jury to the
questions propounced to them, and the
testimony fully bears out this conclu-
sion.
The result is that the check for $500
delivered to defendant, Mrs. Shorb.
May Is, 1890, was intended by Harris as
a gift and that at that time he was com-
petent to make the gift, but that the
check for $12S8 25 signed by him on the
3rd of July. 1890. and the endorsement
of the certificate of deposit by
him on the same day, was not
his aeA as intending to transfer the
same to defendants Shorbs, or either of
them, and that the signature to the
check and Endorsement to the certificate
were obtained from Harris through
fraud and undue influence, and that the
title to the same never passed from Har.
ris to defendants Shorbs, or either OF
them, that the funds received on the
check were received and held by the
defendants Shorbs in trust for Harris
during his lifetime and after his death
for his estate, and that the money re.
ceived on the certificate OF deposit after
his death was also received and held by
the Shorbs in trust for the estate OF
Harris, and that the defendants, the
banks, now having possession of the
funds deposited therein by the defend
ants Sharbs, or either Of them, have NO
right or title to said money, but the
same belongs to the estate of said Harris
and the plaintiff as the representative O
said estate is entitled to recover the
same, together with interest thereon,
from the time Of the conversion of th,
check and certificate into money.
Findings will therefore be prepared
adopting the special verdict of the jury
covering the issues as herein stated, ant
also further findings in favor Of tn,
plaintiff covering the issues in the case
not yet passed upon by the jury aa abov'
stated.