The herald., 1896-02-04
BY FRAUD AND DECEPTION
J.. H. PattiSOn Secures Title to
Valuable Land
BROTHER AGAINST SISTER
Decision With Some Sensational Dis.
closures Rendered
Hr. Psttlson's Deed Set Aside bv the Court
on the Ground That it was Doctored
and Changed


decision which will have the effect OF
setting aside the deed ]. H. Patterson and
others obtained to certain valuable prop
erty, as the judge holds that it was OBJ
tanned by fraud.
The case has been in court for long
time and has become quite famous. The
question at issue was deed from the
father to his son which the plaintiff, Sarah
E. McDaniels, sister of the defendant,
claimed had been doctored to include a
great body of property that was not cover
ed by the original document.
Judge Van Dyke, in his decision, first
overrules the contention that the statute of
limitations bars the plaintiffs action, and
goes right to the meat of the allegations
of fraud in the following language:
''Several efforts were made in this case
to obtain the original decd, and the deposit
ton of the defendant was taken for this
purpose, but no satisfaction could be OBJ
tanned. 1t was lost or mislaid and he had
no control over it. Thereafter, IN Septem-
ber, 1889, before the former trial. he
wrote to Flannigan, friend of his in Mis-
souri,, in which he says: Il had my deposit
ton taken. At that time l didn't know
where the deed was, 4th March, 1889, A.
M. P. to myself. 1t was mislaid. Since
then have found it. don't know that I
will introduce 1t in evidence, as copy is
good enough for me. But may want to
use it. If you would say in reply to me
to myself. it would show it was where l
couldn't lay my hand on it when my depo-
sition was taken. This should be dated
about the 1st of September, 1889. If you
will do this it will enable me to account for
the deed. Though I can get along without
you doing it, but would prefer you to send
a few lines under the above date.'"
Speaking of this, the court says: "When
the deed was produced on the former trial.
its inspection showed clearly erasures and
interlineations. This was 30 palpable that
the defendant himself admitted the era
sures and interlineations and attempted to
explain them"
Upon the objection that the will of the
elder Pattison not having been probated in
this state, under the decision of the su-
preme court on the former appeal, this
action could not be maintained, the court
holds against the defendants.
Then continuing. the court says:
ut is not necessary to devote much time
on the merits of the case. 1t is true. as
claimed by the defendants, that fraud is
not presumed but must be proven. Still,
when certain facts and circumstances are
established or shown to exist. the burden
of proof is shifted. When it is shown that
confidential relations exist between the
parties, or that one of the parties Is old and
infirm and relies upon or depends upon the
other. and has no independent advice, or
where the instrument in question has been
altered, or where evidence has been
held back, suppressed or destroyed or kept
from the adverse party. then the presump-
ton in favor of the transaction is overcome
and it is incumbent upon the party who
reaps the benefit therefrom to explain the
caYna aud catisfantorilv chOW that hn
transaction is honest and fair
''In fact. where the relation of an at
torney and client exists and the tra.sac-
tion results to the benefit or advantage of
the former, the law will not even listen to
explanations, but will pronounce the trans
action illegal and void.
"In reference to transactions with old and
infirm people, our supreme court, in Sobe-
ranes vs. Soberanes, 81 Cal. 145, use this
language: "There is no doubt as to the
principle applicable to cases of this kind.
Transactions like the one under considera-
ton are watched by courts of equity with
the most scrutinizing jealousy, and are
generally held to be presumptively void.
They will be set aside upon the discovery
of the least fraud, and every presumption
ought to be INDUCED against them.
The person who makes the donation
and bestows the confidence is not bound to
show that any imposition has been prac-
tiCcu upOH IL ~ 6umclSIlL lCr ultu 10
establish intimate and confidential rela-
tions with the donee.
"In this case the evidence shows that at
the date of the deed in question A. M. Pat
tison was old and feeble, and that he died
about month thereafter; that he was in
the habit of depending upon his son to
transact his business; also that his widow,
the defendants mother, was old and fee
Bile and relied upon him; that the docu-
ments and papers left by both fell into the
hands Of the defendant and have not been
produced. but are stated to have been
lost or destroyed or mislaid. The de-
fendant, in accounting for the trans
actions and explaining the same, in
bis former testimony claimed that
the property really belonged to him, and
that it was in his fathers name for the pur.
pose of furnishing him means of support.
At this trial the books from the bank were
produced showing the account of the elder
Pattison, of his wife, and of the son, the
defendant. and it appears therefrom that
the elder Pattison was a man of means,
generally having quite large sum in the
bank to his credit. 1t further shows that
at the dates of the conveyances of property
to him sums were drawn by check from his
account corresponding with The purchase
price These accounts produced from the
Dank are entirely inconsistent with the
claim OF the defendant that the property
mentioned in the deed in question was his
property and not that of his father. They
also show that defendants attempted ex-
PLANTATION of the so-called due bill for $4,000
Is not correct-thar this money was not his