The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-11-04
Judgment Given for
Fifty Thousand.
THE END OF A GREAT TRIAL
JUDGE OGDEN USES SOME
-. : - STRONG LANGUAGE.
Sees, Nothing Criminal in the Evil
denee, but Much That Was
: Careless and III Adj
=. .vised.
Oakland Office san Francisco Call.


3. COS Broadway, Nov. 3.
-: Judge Josiah 2. Ames will have to pay
his sister Mrs. Ann Harris, $48,I4S 10.
This is the. decision rendered by Judge
Ogden this morning in the famous case
tried some months ago.
The action was brought to recover rail-
road bonds.sXaIued at $4,000. The trial
:, was 'of remarkable interest as the two
Heading witnesses opposed to each other
were the aged brother and sister. The
plaintiff. was SO years old and the defend
ant about fifteen years her junior. The
complaint. charged that Judge Ames had
taken his sisters fortune and appropriate
ed ii to his own use. The court held that
the amount was due to plaintiff. but over
ruled the allegation that it had been ap-
prSpriated by the Judge for his personal
1benefit.
:. The case. was concluded the oath of last
March, after being on trial for three
months. Judge Ogden has sifted the
testimony in the interval and this morn
ing. he.:deliXered an oral Judgment. The
courts findings were practically as fol-
lows: When Mrs. Harris. became widow
she had j fortune of S150,000. She came
to California and her brother took almost
. entire charge OF her affairs. She had en-
lire confidence in him, and gave liberal
presents. TO her brothers John and Josiah
sand her sister Martha. In 1885 the de-
:Sendant, desiring 70 go into business, got
=
her forty-three bonds, worth $4,000 ana
other property TO him, in return for
which She received Judge Ames' note, in
.dorseG by Ames and DIETRICH. Ames sold
the bonds five years later for $3.50 ana
made a. large profit. Referring 10 some OF
. her transfers of property, the court SAID:
TWO years prior Mrs. Harris had given to
her brother John sixteen houses in this city,
valued at SI5, 600, reserving for herself NE
interest, with right to the rent and interest
during life I believe the agreement of Febru-
airy ., 1885, was made IN response 20 a 9eilaIlo
a part OF her fortune. He probably urged that
she should make him q gift as she had done
In 1856. ii is said the plaintiff relinquished
her claim and took in lieu thereof nVe notes:
. TO pay TO plaintiff a large yearly income until
her DEATH but under the new arrangement he
was to pay additional sum of 1925 per an
mum for i've years and nothing thereafter. Inc
bonds and property should then be MS
It Is this instrument of September 30. 1886
that the plaintiff claims she never sisaso, ai h
many plausible theories have been advances vance,; py
her to show how such document lived ana
BY a, careful Derusal OF the evidence this
Tieinttff never signed tie agreement, knowing
its tuu import. 1t Is not reasonable 70 sup
g. pose that she would supplement- her already
generous gifts by additional ones, when ner
heart was so bitterly opposed TO her brother,
had already given. 1t therefore devolves upon
the defendant Under these circumstances 70
show that his agreement was valid and legal
: Hence this court does cancel the agreement
: Of September. 1886. ,o-
With reference TO the AGREEMENT AoSv
have experienced more difficulty do not
hold me defendant guilty of conversion, put
while he IS not guilty OF THIS charge ne mas
concealed from his sister his real action in
e. r is maintained that the defendant should
have s25 COO out OF the value OF the bonds TO
start in business this ia erroneous posi-
ton Tie contention that this amount was
given to defendant to offset the similar amount
given TO John Ames, is also wrong. IN an
0ther transactions Mrs. Harris secured herself
by. notes and she would. have done so IN THESE
cases. -, ....
made by plaintiff and signed by her in which
she took back all her charges against her
brother. have but few worqs- 1ha s sne wrote
gfiest Of her nephew whom she held in high
esteem there is mo doubt. But We are stu
raced with the fact that from 1888 TO 1885 the
pla1ntin was trying to obtain from her brother
an account OF his transactions This she was
unable to do. except such one as could not
be fathonledp by. a Philadelphia lawyer. -fhree
times she tried, once at her own request, once
at. the request of this court, and again dur
ing the trial This was incorrect by the de-
ie r must be said that if: this opinion be
wrong IL is by the negligence of the defendant.
having ;hefd a high judicial position in. the
. State. He is supposed to know how to Keep
accounts and THE necessity Of keeping truthful,
concise statements OF his TRANSACTIONS II was
from the accounts made by the defendant be-
fore the family rupture that the court has
taken the basis of this decision
Now with. regard to the last question: II
the bonds were not wrongly converted by de-
PENDANT. can the plaintiff recover. as TO them2
i believe that 1.-The title to them must be vested
IN plaintiff Judgment will therefore be given
10: p}ainti6 for. s4s,4Is IS. the proceeds OF the
, 81 appears that the money given to plaintiff
in 1885 has been converted into five notes
whose interest has been paid, AS 20 those
amounts. the defendant VIII be entitled to
Let judgment be- entered accordingly.