New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-07-17
~ FAVOR OF GEO. J. GOULD.
,xurRITANCE TAX DUE ON HIS
r.ruER's s5.ooooo REQUEST.

Could 10 ne ,rhar,,ance tax on the ground that
the co'" hrouest made TO George j. Gould IN re-
"" s,- valuable services to his father Inc "e-
iui" =, ,he Surrogate is as follows:
TSe former decision herein He W. T nronr r@w
journal ,..frc an appraiser TO make an appfoN-
Of ,esnnaie OF the probable expenses OF ad' h
mate e. T,nsse EXPENSES have been estimated 10y
sratonr., and an examination OF the evidence
ne Which his Judgment is based ssas 10 -
cnTfsihn,,ng the commissions Is concerheG II IA
cs.scnt 10 say that the appraiser has calcuiatea
hem decision referred 10 above. III. ...ou
n my views Of the learned appraiser Win REFER
ence y be value OF the securities as set forth In
sln, naoort satisfy me that correct method mas
M M. 'ssfopted and concur in ms opiniQn Inc
been n-o,,nd Of error alleged which requires dis-
ONLY grOs' The liability TO taxation Of the legacy
osc.ocn to George Gould
rx.u-DGE DILLON's TESTIMONY
&c.. a,st witness called TO sustain the claim Of
,'o-oe Gould TO exemption upon the legacy OF
80. was ex-Judge Dillon. who drew the codi-
- contain.ng the provision At meeting Of the
Ito Pacific Railroad Company. in the Western
- Building at which the decedcnt pres
W the latter requested the witness TO call at his
ssus Sill 40 In response to the question if there
NV particular hurry about Il. the decedent re-
an snss in in the negative few days later witness
pm pm and the decedent informed him that he had
isre contemplated making certain changes N ms
,9 9;I and had made memoranda of the same There
VII VII TWO memoranda one Of which. relating 10
W. ~ CONDENSATION OF George Gould. was only
r substance but almost literally Incorporated into
~ viii The testator told the witness Judge
Nilon) that the more important OF the changes
was va, ss had signed the memorandum referring
he sane that II he should die 1t would be bind
~ upon his representatives. He asked the wit
ns.s |. hat would be the result and he replied in
.ss aA-ma tive. Decedent said mat thdt was the
LAX vhv re signed the memorandum The wit
,sss knows that the statement in the Will and
,nsmorand I'm 10 the rendition or services Is
@ As counsel for the decedent and the various
IN vi -
~ Il vii be observed that no objection was taken
AZ the STATE 20 this testimony to the in
PRODUCTION IN evidence OF the nenof indum referred
To- Some claim was made subsequently that II in
VOWED q confidential communication and was in
c9mpe;en. for that reason. Assuming that the evil
senct was reasonably objected to upon this ground
Il Is not sound The very purpose Of the transac-
lion testified to would b defeated if 1t We're to be
regardel as such The interview referred 10 above
ing the same executed the 2lst. the deceient
dying IN December foIlc wins
UNIQUE AND EXTRAORDINARY SERVICES
The services rendered by George Gould during his
'aihers life We're unique and Of extraordinary char
acter and could be measured by no ordinary com
lensa zion II Il likely however. that these services
mus necessarily have been largely rendered by him
n connection with the corporations or which ne WAS
IN officer and IN performance OF his duties as such
The remarks in the brief Of counse. a. 10 the eA-
raoriirary confidence r,losei in George foud 10y
BIS father are amply borne out by reference 10 the
estmony
j.
stfy In his BEHALF. tie nrst knew OF the
rcvsion FOR him contained in the eighth article OF
~ second cOdc.. about Week before MS rather
'eaih Hi father was sick In bed ana i1id MN
here his viii was and 10 20 ana get Il Nhen ne
ad gotten ii he asked him 70 open the envelope
ma read II through, vhich witness dld' Ineh ne
sket y n underSl fo1 H. ana witness ssld n" dll
satisfactory 10 which ne replied that 1t was The
witness was then inter- Osated as follows When
a made was satisfactory 10 YOU ne had releIehcs
q the provision "a Il now stands in the Will which
: contained in the eighth paragraph or the second
The learned counsel for the state objected this
,ont to testimony " the conversation mad with the
deceased by this witness FOR the purpose of estab-
ishing a claim on the ground that IL was incompe-
would receive the evidence subject 10 the objection
While I entertain some doubt as 20 the competency
,ready been received without objection to establish
The witness George J Gould> did not see the mem
randum Exhibit A until after his fathers death.
ie Was not present when he wrote il: and was not
: execution s, 10 by Ms laher H. was frs shown i
he witness said that the recital contained in Exhibit
erect
MANAGEMENT OF GREAT INTERESTS
The witness George J. Could. with considerable
sjan. stated the services which he rendered in the
Iecutloa Of the contract referred 10 from the time
his entering the office of Washington F. Con-
Dr. representative Of his fathers interests. the
organization Of that firm and his partnership
herein They at that tine loanng OF
oney. frequently amounting to much
300 lc0 al one time the witness having the entire
large Of such loans After the dissolution OF that
I'm he went 10 the Western Union Building. and
ok entire charge OF mis- fathers business and
im.l.ar with MS fathers accounts. He vas never
lgagsd in business Of his own. From that time he
'voted his time and attention 10 his fathers
Isiness until his fathers death. For some years
naF -
The details Of the business managed nv him for his
l'hsr are given; and show the important nature ot
posed IN him At page "a the witness testified
-esums bly, under the general objection interposed
hle A. Saratoga. his father had asked him 70 ,aHs
h. witness in but he wanted him 70 agree not 10
'eculate ana not 20 engage IN any business upon
A. "a ge 70 on REORGANIZATION by the learned
ounsel for the State. the witness was asked
NJ At Saratoga with his father in regard 70 his .
.rvces and ne replied that az No 1875 BROADWAY
aid n substance That the witness had served him
cry faithfully and that he thought he ought to
ompensaiion. He replied that he did not know.
hat he could Tx IT, but left it to the deceased
SALARY OF $4,000 YEAR.
The decea sed asked him II 10000 year for the .
inc ne had been with him would be satisfactory
nd II witness would feel fully compensated. to
'hch witness assented. The date OF his CONVEX
ion Of the GIFT 10 witness by decedent Of the house
F1fth-av-
This evidence entirely new matter. brought .
" upon crosse xaminaton. and the general objec-
on with reference 10 the competency OF TINS VIII
ess 10 testify certainly waived as 10 the lat
y transaction. and such @vijenc. In onnection
IN the other unObectiona bic evidence establishes
lat an agreement enforceable In law had been
ltered INTO between the claimant. George j.
QUO and his father. 10 render services for the
improvisation stated The order appealed from is
firmed
The SurTOgate's decision ends with the foregoing
nteuce.
An action brought in the name OF the State
New-York 20 collect an income tax on the $500
legacy left 70 George j Gould. David Mcclure
no was appointed appraiser 10 decide what
mount Was due. rendered a report holding that
70 legacy free from taxation This report
ar appealed from by the State. and Surrogate
zgerald opinion sustains the report OF Mr. Nc
ur" and is fatal 10 the appeal. Ex-Judge Dillon
a. counsel for Mr.. Gould
me inheritance tax in such case as that of the
oulds would be per cent on The entire amount. 1t
said