The herald., 1897-05-20
Heavy Damage Suit Against the
Southern Pacific
$4,000 THE AMOUNT CLAIMED
CALABASAs CONSTABLE FINED
FOR BEING OvERZEALoUS
The Will of Julius Kelly Filed for
Probate-Belardes Case Finally
Decided-Verba1 Contract
of Marriage

"A rather complicated suit came to trial
in department five yesterday before
Judge Shaw. 1t was redeemed from the
commonplace by touch of womans de-
votion, as shown by one of the defend
ants made party to the suit. The plain
tiff was O. II. Kiefer, assignee OF the
estate of w. H. Young, an insolvent
debtor. against w. H. Young and his
wife, Nellie M. Young.
w. H. Young was for time proprie-
tor of the saloon at the corner of First
and Los Angeles streets, the lease OF
the premises being held by F. Conrad a
brewer, as security for a note for $500.
The value of the saloon. it was claimed.
was about $1,000. On the 10th of May
Young filed his petition in insolvency,
and upon Kiefer being appointed as
signee of the insolvents estate he found
there was very little property to satisfy
the demands of the creditors. The sa-
loon had passed into other hands, and
save that. Young had really nothing in
the world. An investigation followed,
and then Kiefer discovered, according to
the claim made, that on April Gath
Young had sold and exchanged the sa-
loon for lot 40 in Grider & Dow'e Adams
street tract, having upon it dwelling
house, the property being valued at S220o.
The deal was made with Henry Bickel
and Fred Kopp, they assuming the la
bility of the $500 note upon taking over
the saloon, and Mrs. Young-for the deed
to the house and lot was made in her
name-taking over a $500 mortgage on
the house and lot.
Kiefer contended that at the time of
the exchange of properties Young was
practically insolvent and owed his cred
itors S1073.10; that Mrs Nellie Young
gave no consideration for the property
decided to her, and that when she filed
homestead upon the property, which she
did very speedily after the exchange
was made she made herself a party to
what was a fraudulent transaction. In
these premises plaintiff asked the court
to annul the homestead and declare the
conveyance of the property fraudulent,
null and void. In brief, the court was
asked to throw down the distractions
and let Young's creditors have chance
at the $4,000 worth of real estate.
But the defense had something to say.
Mre. Young went upon the witness stand
and stood the fire of close cross exam
ination regarding her right to the prop
erty AT length and in detail she told
how she had borrowed money from her
mother before her marriage in order
that her sweetheart might get upon his
financial feet before the marriage took
place. After that event, however, the
husband again became somewhat
pressed for money, and his wife again
made raise" from her mother. The old
lady was not told what the money was
wanted for, she not being any too well
disposed toward her son-in-law, but a
fair excuse was made, and on the time
worn theory that it is not we'll to let
debtor go to the wall for fear of losing
what money has been laid out, a further
advance was made to Young. In all, the
wife loaned her husband-to- be and that
afterward was, about $3.50. The defense
figured on the exchange deal somewhat
as follows: Nine hundred and fifty dol
lars advanced by Mrs. Young; $3.50 mort
gage assumed; $500 note held by Conrad,
and 5000 paid the real estate man for
commission on the deal; making grand
total of $2300
How far the court may accept these
figures remains to be seen, and also how
far they may be taken as justification
for the exchange. Al the time the trans
fer was made Young contends that he
was not insolvent. He was i'll at the
time, but made payment of about $1,000
to his creditors the same day the proper
ty deal was put through.
The case was submitted on briefs.