Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1902-02-07
LAW OF WEDDING GIFTS,
though Sent to the Brides Home They
May Be the Husbands.

CHARLES and his wife Eta, Bass was
tried In the District Court at Woon
socket, and judgment was given the de
PENDANTS for costs. It was an actor
of trover and conversion. The plain
tiff alleged that certain wedding gifts
which he gave temporarily into the
possession Of the defendant or thc
parents OF his wife China Bass Moss)
from whom he has separated. are bc
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 q 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, We're the witnesses who
appeared for Mr.. Moss. The prosecu-
ton denied that Mr.. Moss had ever
made a gift of the articles to his wife
after their separation, and limited that
their relations were so strained that
such gift was out OF the question.
Charles Fl. 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 then had something to
say concerning the ethics of wedding
gifts. He maintains that if one sends
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 12e tride 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 We're 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
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 vas very La
bic that Mr.. Moss made the gifts, as it
made possible the separation without
much other outlay.
John II. Heifernan, 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 INSULT
cient. The testimony OF the defense
was criticised by Mr.. Hefernan.
Judge Feely, before giving a verdict,
said that the plaintiff should have
asked Mrs. Bass for the goods. Mr..
Lass, II w 10 was lOJ IL DtA y
to the conversion, and il Mrs. Bass had
not been requested to restore the prop
erty, conversion could Eot 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-
feTnan represents Mr.. Moss. The re-
pleyil suit is sequel to the suit
brought by Mr.. Moss for the securing
of the wedding gifts which he gave
int bA l-nA xNf NT,.e,