The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-04-20
WACHSTEIN'S TITLE GOOD.
JURY IN PRENTY CASE FOUND IN
FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS.

Special Verdict, Made Up of An
swers 40 Various Questions, Was
Returned by the Jury, and These
Answers Were Every One Opposed
to the plaintiffs Contentious OF
Fact NO Fraud or Duress Had
Been Used by McMurray in Obtain
ing Transfer From Mrs. Catherine
Prenty-Wachstein without Notice
Even of Alleged Defects ana
Bought in Good Faith.
After listening to the charge of Judge Fal-
ligant and considering for less than half
an hour the law and the evidence in he
case of Mary Ann Prenty against Fneb
Wachstein and others the Superior Court
Jury to which the case was submitted rem
dered a special verdict, unfolding every
one of the contentious Of the defendants.
Judge Falligaut delivered his charge TO
the jury when court convened at 10 O'clock
yesterday morning. A number of requests
TO charge had been submitted to the court
and the jury had also been furnished with
a series of questions, TO which specific and
definite answers were desired The court
gave to the jury a clear and complete eX-
position of the law governing the case,
though after all the meat of the matter
was in the questions of fact, as TO whether
or not any fraud or duress had been prac-
ticed upon Mrs. Catherine Prenty by Pat
rick McAIurray, TO induce her to transfer
to him the bond to reconvey from the Ogle-
thorpe Savings and Trust Company to her,
upon which MeMurray's title 10 the prop
erty was based, and whether or not Wach
stein had been put on notice of the de-
fects or alleged defects in the title of Pat
rick McMurray. Both of these questions
were resolved by the jury in favor of the
defendants
The jury found that the facts Of the case
were that Catherine Prenty had borrowed
$1,000 from the Oglethorpe Savings and
Trust Company, receiving from that cor
poration a bond 10 reconvey the property
mortgaged for the debt upon its payment.
This bond she transferred TO Patrick Nc
Murray, the consideration of the transfer
being the assumption by him of the debt
of 5000. This debt he had afterwards
paid.
The jury found further that the prop
erty had been advertised for sale in the
Morning News, and offered for sale at
public cutlery, on a regular sales day, be-
fore the door of the Court House. 1t
had not been sold on that occasion, and
had afterwards been transferred by Pat
rick McMurray to Gerald MeAIurray. 1t
had been bought from Gerald McMurray
by Fileb Wachstein, the latter becoming
according, to the jury's finding, a pur-
chaser for value, without notice and in
perfect good faith. AS the jury had pre-
viously found that there had been no fraud
practiced upon Mrs. Catherine Prenty
the finding of the jury as to Wachstein
followed as a matter of course.
The verdict of the jury, unless the case
is carried to the Supreme Court, as 1t may
possibly be, concludes one of the most
interesting civil cases heard for long
time in the courts of Savannah. The al
legations in the plaintiffs bill of complaint
were sensational, charging both fraud
and duress against Patrick McMurray in
obtaining title to the property from Mrs
Prenty, and imputing notice of the fraud
and duress to Wachstein, the subsequent
purchaser.
The case was bitterly contested by a
strong array of counsel every step in the
introduction of evidence almost being the
occasion of a legal battle Some of the
witnesses for the plaintiff made positive
and direct charges that notice of the al
legged defects in McMurray's tide had been
conveyed TO Wachstein before he became
the purchaser of the property. and these
witnesses are utterly and completely dis
credited by the findings of the jury.
While the verdict and the decree, based
upon it, may end this branch of the lit-
gallon, there are others yet to be tried.
Among these is the question Of the Gus
tody of the child of the plaintiff. Mary
Ann Prenty, and Patrick McMurray.
When the plaintiff sued McMurray for "a
divorce, some time since 1t was granted
her, her maiden name was restored and
the custody of this child awarded to her.
McMurray, however, continues to exhibit
a contumacious indifference to the DEGREES
of the court and has refused to give the
child up to the mother
As he resides in New York, outside the
Jurisdiction of the Superior Court of
Chatham county. he has been enabled to
make his refusal good, and the process of
the court here has not been able to reach
him and punish him for contempt In his
argument to the jury Mr. Barrow inti-
mated that proceedings to gain the Gus
tody of the child for the mother would be
Instituted in New York, and it is within
the probabilities that the scene of the
further legal conflict will be transferred
from this state to that of the husband or
eX-husband's residence.