The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1901-12-11
LAW OF WEDDING GIFTS.
Though Sent to the Brides Homo They
May BE the Husbands.

of trover and conversion. The plain
tiff alleged that certain wedding gifts
which he gave temporarily into the
possession of the defendant or the
parents of his wife (Nina Bass Moss,
from whom he has separated, are be-
ing retained by the defendants in
spite of the fact that he is their sole
owner and has made demands for
them.
Witnesses for the defense claimed
that Moss, after separating from his
wife, had made the latter gift Of the
articles at issue. Mr.. Bass acknowl-
edged that the plaintiff had made de-
mand of him for the goods, but Mrs.
Moss denied that she had been visited
and requested to give back the we'd
ding gifts. Both maintained that they
belonged to their daughter Nina and
were not for them to control. The
! wedding gifts were taken to the Bass
home when the daughter returned
there.
Several friends and relatives of Mr..
Moss appeared in court, and testified
that they had sent presents, including
oil paintings and silverware, at the
time of the wedding, but the presents,
they say, were intended for Mr.. Moss
alone. Elizabeth Owens, OF Hills
grove. William Moss, Jr., Clarence Os-
borne and Robert T.. Collinge, the lat
ter of Lincoln, were the witnesses who
appeared for Mr.. Moss. The prosecu-
tion denied that Mr.. Moss had ever
made a gift of the articles to his wife
after their separation, and limited that
their relations were 80 strained that
such q gift was out of the question.
Charles H. McFee, who appeared for
the defense, asked that the plaintiff
be non-suited, claiming that his wit
nesses had failed to show that there
was conversion of the goods. Mr.. Nc
Fee said that the presents belonged
Jointly to Mr.. Moss and wife. At the
time Of the wedding they were sent
to her home and they bore no cards
stating that they were for the groom
| alone. 1t was easy, the lawyer said,
| for friends of Mr.. Moss to stand In
court and claim that they intended
to give to him alone.
Judge Feely :hen had something to-
say concerning the ethics Of wedding
gifts. He maintains that if one sends
| O. present to Il person about to be
married, the gift belongs exclusively
tc the man or woman for whom it is
intended, and not necessarily to both
of the contracting couple. ConVen'
ton declares that the gift be sent to
the brides home, and for the sake of
| delicacy no distinction is made be-
tween the bride and groom, but, nev-
| ertheless, the title to the gift rests in
the person remembered by. the donor.
| Mr.. and Mrs Bass and their daugh-
ter Nina were the only witnesses for
the defense.
Mrs. Nina Bass Moss affirmed that
the articles in question had been ten
dered her as gifts by her husband
when the separation came. Mr.. and
Mrs. Moss have been married only a
short while and they separated last
summer. The goods claimed by the
| pair are valued at nearly $50.
All the testimony in, Mr.. McFee
maintained that no conversion had
been proven by the other side. The
plaintiff had failed, Mr.. McFee said,
to show that demand had been made
OF the proper person, and this being
the case no conversion could be
proven. The counsel for the defend
ants maintained that it was very liza
bic that Mr.. Moss made the gifts, rs It
made possible the separation without
much other outlay.
John II. Heffernan. counsel for Mr..
Moss, argued that effective testimony
had been introduced to show that the
presents belonged solely to the plain
tiff and that the evidence in relation to
the making Of the gifts was insuffi-
cient The testimony of the defense
was criticised by Mr.. Heffernan.
Judge Feely, before giving a verdict,
said that the plaintiff should have
asked Mrs. Bass for the goods. Mr..
Bass, it was said, was not a party
to the conversion, and if Mrs. Bass had
lot been requested to restore the prop.
erty, conversion could not be alleged
against her. No evidence had been
given to show that the plaintiff had di.
rectly demanded the presents from
Mrs. Bass, and this being the case,
judgment was given the defendants
for costs.
In the afternoon, several hours after
judgment for the defendants had been
given, Deputy Sheriff Landry visited
the Bass home on Reservoir avenue,
and replevined the goods for the pos.
session Of which William H. Moss un-
successfully sued in the morning in
the District Court.
Mr.. Moss is plaintiff in the new re-.
plevin case and his wife, Nina (Bass)
Moss, is the defendant. John J. Hef-
fernan represents Mr.. Moss. The re-
plevin suit Is a sequel to the suit
brought by Mr.. Moss for the securing
of the wedding gifts which be gave
into the keeping of Mr.. and Mrs.
Charles Bass few months ago, when
he and his wife decided to separate.
After they separated she went to live
with her parents, whom Mr.. Moss sued
for the gifts and lost.-Providence
Journal.
| How Deserts Are Reclaimed.
In the Western country, where the
| rorp,orc dpnond mostly on stock rails.