The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1901-11-27
Mrs. Lee SeWs ST, 700 in
Her Petticoat and Wears
It for Eleven Years.
STRANGE CHANCERY SUIT
Complainant Charged With
Stealing, Transfers His
Property Under Threats
of His Employers.


During the hearing of a suit for an
Injunction In reference to some real
estate at Paterson. today. before Vice
Chancellor Pitney, a queer story Of
transfer Of the property at issue was
made public. The complainant in the
case was David Van Buszirk, Of Patar-
son, who, prior to July, 1858. owned $500
worth of land on Jasper street. in that
city. He also possessed some wagons,
harness and jewelry OF the value OF s5e9
and saving IN the Paterson Savings In
stitution amounting to $1,000, one-half Of
which belonged TO his brother-in-Iaw,
William Lee. Lee and Van Buskirk
pooled all their money and built a house
on the lots owned by Van Buskirk
AT the time Van Buskirk was employed
by the seed firm of Muzzy Brothers in
Paterson, who, when they heard that
their clerk was building an expensive
house. became suspicious and wondered
how he came by the money One night
in July. 1898, the firm called Van Buskirk
into their office and accused him of steal
ing the firms money They told him. so
the complainant swore. that they would
send him to jail If he didn t at once make
restitution BY giving up to them all his
4CsAA 7ld eC riiiA P~ASp34@i IA clCA - - ~
made the transfer, said Van Buskirk. the
firm promised the affair would be kept
quiet and his family wouldn't be ruined.
Similar threats were made to Van BUS
kinks wife about the disgrace to follow.
and they went so far as to tell the hus-
band that he would be imprisoned that
night if he did not comply with the de-
mand.
~
threats and while persisting in his inno-
-cence, he was coerced and intimidated
into signing an assignment of his prop
erty to AIuzzy Brothers, but on the un-
derstanding that ii, after an examination
of the firms books, no shortage was dis
covered, the property should be retrans-
ferred to Van Buskirk. As soon as tis
transfer was made the firm discharged
him and he became suspicious, he said,
and demanded his property back, but they
refused. He then began the present suit.
The answer of Muzzy Bros. to The SUIT
set out that Van Buskirk was their sales
man and handled large sums OF money.
and one day in July. 1893, member Of
the firm saw him after a sale put ten
dollars into his pocket. He was accused
of the theft and said the answer:
Admitted that he had for a long time
been in the habit of abstraeting the mon
les of the firm. and ths amount taken was
at least 5000"
In consequence of this admission tbs
firm offered the alternative of going TO jail
or making good the stealings. and Van
Buskirk chose the latter course by trans
ferring his property to the firm, who
were in lawful possession
During The testimony the brother-in-law,
William Lee, was sharply cross examined
as to where he got the money lie nut into
the pool TO build the Van Buskirk house.
and he told the Vice Chancellor that his
mother was for many years a nurse in a
Baltimore hospital. She accumulated
sl70o, which she put into a chamois
leather bay and sewed it up in her petit
coat.
"What?" asked the Vice Chancellor.
HSewed it up where?''
Lee repeated it, and added, to tie
Courts amusement by saying that al
though his mother had prior to her death
been hedridden for eleven years, she wors
the petticoat all the time and wouldn't
permit anybody to touch it. Before her
death she gave it to her son Lee, telling
him
Now, my son. that is for you when /
am gone
Not only was the Court astonished but
still more so Ex-Governor George 7.
Werts counsel for Van Buskirk. who
heard this piece of evidence on his side OF
the case for the first time. 1t was brought
out by an. accidental question put by ths
other side
The case was adjourned until December.