The San Francisco call., 1898-12-13
The Many Woes of George McHenry.
SUES FOR HIS PROPERTY
MAKES COMPLAINT THAT HE
 WAS SWINDLED.
When Informed That a Blackmail Suit Was to Be Filed Against Him He Deeded Away
 Valuable Real Estate.

If all the allegations contained in an amended complaint filed yesterday are true the woes of aged George McHenry are many, and his daughters misdeeds have filled his cup of sorrow to the brim Not long ago McHenry filed a complaint In which his daughter, Mary McHenry, appeared as defendant, to recover prop erty situated in this city and Monterey County, valued at upward of $50, ,0OO In the original complaint McHenry made no sensational allegations, simply stating that he had transferred title to his daugh- ter without consideration and for cer- tain reasons, just intimating that 1t was done to prevent a recovery by Mary Burns, a stepdaughter, who was about to commence suit against him, but on what grounds he did not state. AS he had re- ceived no consideration for the property he asked that it again be placed in his hands and that the deeds held by his daughter be declared null and void.
 In the amended complaint filed yes to, deceived and swindled by his daugh- ter, who influenced him to transfer the property by stating that suit about to be brought against him by Mary Burns was without merit and was simply a biackmailing scheme to deprive him of his property.
 amended complaint is sad one.
 On September 4, 1897, states the plain tiff, he was a man past the prime of life much enfeebled in mind and body In this condition he sought the comfort, aid and Companionship and advice of his daugh- ter. She came to live with him from a convent; representing that she was in miserable health and that she had been granted leave of absence for one year In which to recuperate. By reason of their mutual condition there arose in the mind of the aged father great feelings of trust and love for his daughter, and to her Mcdenry confided his business mat ters and sought, received and acted upon her advice. They were happy together for time, but on the day mentioned, the plaintiff alleges, his daughter, with the intent to mislead and deceive him, and well knowing that her statements were false and untrue, represented that Mary Burns intended to sue him for islander; that the action would be simply black mail, but that against false testimony he would be powerless. A judgment would be obtained against him. and 1t was his duty to save what he had. Acting on this advice he transferred the property to his daughter. She would hold 1t in trust. she said, until the day he again wanted it back. The day came when he again. sought the title to his property, but his daughter refused to reconVey it. Then he sought the courts.
 The agreement by which the ~~onerty was transferred shows that in considera- tien of the transfer and placing of title in her name Miss McHenry was to pay the sum of $50 a month. This considera- ton, the aged plaintiff ayers, was not the true or real agreement, but in truth and fact the deeds were wholly without consideration, and the real agreement was that the defendant should be vested with the legal title of the property until such time as he might again demand it. McHenry states that he is now depend ent upon the charity of friends, having no means, and being so feeble Lat he cannot earn a livelihood. In conclu- sion he prays that the property be, by order of court, reconveyed to him, and that his daughter be compelled to ac- count for the moneys received by her, the income from the property.