Evening journal., 1894-03-08
HUGH PATTON'S WILL.
Argument in the Superior
Court on the Trustees Power.
MRCARPENTER sOLDTHE PROPERTY

The widow Objected and Carried .the
Matter into Court-A Case Stated
Argued This Morning by william S.
HiIIes and II. @. Bradford-The Hart
man Argument.
Argument in the certiorari case of
Maria c. Hartman VS.. the Mayor and
Council of Wilmington, was concluded
yesterday afternoon and the Super or
Court reserved its decision.
While the amount involved is nominal
the principle is of the utmost importance
to property owners in this city and state.
for the laws relating to the powers OF
the Board of Health of this city are the
same as those which govern the boards
of health gof the towns in the state,
organized under the state law. The
questions involved we're:
First-Whether the writ Of certiorari
was a proper and appropriate rem
edy and whether the record Of the
proceedings Of the Board of Health could
be reviewed by the Superior Court by use
of that writ.
Second-Whether the proceedings Of
u
place or thing to be a nuisance, detri.
mental to public health, were invalid
because it did not show that the owner
of the premises had been notified that
the board would consider the case and
because she had not had an opportunity
/ to be heard in her own defense before the
board had declared the place nuisance
II was claimed by Mr.. Ward, counsel
/ orfu haf
| tional right had been invaded On the
other hand, Messrs. Elliott and Curtis
coptended that, as notice was not re.
quired by law, the record was correct,
and that that was the only question
/ fairly raised by the certiorari; but they
also claimed and showed by authorities
that no constitutional right was invaded,
because the proceedings OF the Board OF
Health we're not final and conclusive. and
that she had an opportunity to defend
herself in subsequent proceedings taken
by the Board of Health for the summary
abatement Of the nuisance.
This morning City Solicitor Elliott and
II. h. Ward appeared aud agreed that in
q similar case, growing out of the one
argued yesterday in which Mrs. Hart
man was fined in the Municipal Court
the judgment of the Municipal Court
should be reversed and allow the ques-
tion to depend upon the case now before
the court
The case stated Of Mary ]. Patton VS.
James G. Dillon was then heard. II was
a case of eiectment in which William s.
Hilles represented the plaintiff, ant
Edward g Bradford the defendant
| Hugh Patton died on October 10, 1898
His will provided that, after the payment
OF his funeral expenses and debts, the rea
aud personal property should 60 to his Wifi
during her life time, and, after that, bG
divided among her children, share anc
share alike, The will made Joseph L.
Carpenter, Jr.. trustee Of the real estat
during the life of the widow, witt
power in him to convey the real estate.
Mr.. Carpenter conveyed to James
Dillon certain real estate on West Fifth
street, receiving, in exchange. certsii
other real estate When Mrs PattOI
heard Of the transfer she objected to It
The property exchanged was trans
feIred back to Dillon for
money consideration of 81 ,650 0u
of this sum he paid of a mortgage o.
$500, leaving 81. $50 for the benefit Of tn,
widow during her lifetime and for dis
tribution among the heirs at her death
This 81, $50 he put in two 6rst mortgages
which he now holds for her benefit.
Mr.. Hilles contended that the powe
Of trustee given in the will of Hugh Pat
ton was not sufficient for him to conve,
the real estate during the lifetime of tn
widow.
Mr.. Bradford held that the legal estat
was in Mr.. Carpenter as trustee and that
in making the sale or exchange, ne ha
not exceeded the powers vested in hir
under the will. The Judgment must b
for the defendant.
Mrs. Patton, Mr.. Carpenter, Mr. Dillo
and other witnesses were put on tn
stand and lengthy and sbly-conducte
argument followed.