Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1900-02-10

ctrities or the proceeds thereof to
Judge stevenson Burke and apply the
same TO the Judgment he sets mp
against Ritchic, or whether the order
shall be that the executors shall turn
these stocks, bonds and cou-
pons over to the defendant, So
phronia j. Ritchie, so that the case
is virtually in the nature of creditors
bill on the part of defendant. Judge
Burke, to reach the property in qucs-
tion as the property of the defendant.
Samuel ]. Ritchie; or whether the or
der shall he made that the property
which Burke now claims shall be held
and treated as the property of Soph-
ronia j. Ritchic. the wife of Samuel
j. Ritchie.
The only witness in the case and the
only testimony offered in fact was the
testimony of Samuel ]. Ritchic, who
was sworn as witness in behalf of
Judge Burke, and while the testimony
was very incomplete in many respects,
he, nevertheless. testified that these
stocks, bonds and coupons were the
property of his wife; that she owned
the property at the time they borrowed
this money of Cornell; that she became
IA fot A,at NF h.
same; and that her bonds and property
were given to Cornell and held by him
in pledge.
Mr.. Baird, one of the executors, was
also called as a witness. who testified
personally that the executors had moth
ing to do with the settlement entered
into by and between the Cornell lega-
tees and the Ritchies. He testified,
however, that an action was pending
in this court brought by Samuel J.
Ritchie against Cornell and others for
a large sum of money, and that Mrs.
Ritchie had also prepared petition,
but which was not filed, in which she
also claimed large sum of money due
from Cornell and others growing out of
these Canadian transactions; and that
the withdrawal of the suit and the
settlement of the claim of Mrs Ritchie
was the consideration for this settle
ment.
1t would seem to the court that the
burden of proof was upon the de-
fendant, Stevenson Burke. to make good
the allegation of his answer that these
bonds and securities so held by these
executors now that the executors have
no further claim upon them, should be
held and treated as the property of Mr..
Ritchie. Mr.. Ritchie, however, testi-
fled that the property SO pledged to
Cornell did belong to his wife and be-
longs to her now; and stated also, with
some detail, how the property was ac-
quircd by her, and that he in fact had
substantially no interest in 1t; or very
small interest IL any: and there was
no evidence before the court to show
the extent of his interest, if he had
any, other than the testimony which he
gave. The court is not prepared upon
this partial showing to decree that
these stocks, bonds coupons and prop
erty so held by the executors shall be
applied to this unpaid Judgment, ms
against the positive testimony of Ritch
ie to the contrary.
In regard to the action brought by
Judge Burke against Ritchie and wife
in the Court of Common Pleas of Guy
ahoga county, which was taken to The
Circuit court, and thence to the Su
prcme court of the state. that, since
the hearing in the Common Pleas
Court here, has been dismissed, or, IL
other words, the judgment of the Cir
cult Court affirmed, so that that cas-,
is out of the way so far as this hcarin,
is concerned.
1t is the Judgment of tho court, there
fore, that the relief prayed for by til,
defendant, Sophrona J. Ritchic b,