New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-07-16
RECEITER FOR MRS. ELIAS
Court Continues Injunction John r.
Plat Obtained

The temporary injunction obtained by John R
PIatt. who IS suing Hannah Elias the negress 70
recover property decided TO her in 1885 1895
1893 and 1901. which restrained number of banks
party defendants 10 his action from paving Mrs
Elias any money held deposit pending the de-
termination OF the suit. continued yesterday by
Justice Blanchard
The justice also announced that he would appofnt
receiver of all the woman's property with certain
restrictions These that she shall have a suffi-
Client for her suitable support. that the re-
ceiver shall pay her the first OF each month a
be fixed. that she be permitted TO occupy
free Of rent premises not mentioned in the de-
cisiOn and to have the OF the household furni-
ture therein Over her wearing apparel the re-
ceiver is not TO exercise control
The properties which Mr. Plat seeks 10 recover
are No. 1Ss West Fifty-third-st. the north side
Of West Stxtyeighth-st-. in Central Park West and
on the south side OF West Seventy-second-st. Han
nah Elias is alleged 70 obtained from the plain
tifr s6S5. 3SS
Justice Blanchard says in part:
When Invested of all the immateriaI and merely
sensational features, the alleged facts OF this
present an ordinary cause OF action in equity TO
wrongfuiIy and fTsgd9iehtiy Outlined
! DO not think the immoral relations existing
essential qualities OF the plaintiffs cause OF ac-
the money which she has extorted from the plain
TN by threats as claimed by him ne is entitled
turned over 70 him. and that. too without refer
On the contrary. If he paid her any OF this money
in good faith. and voluntarily. for any favors
which she may have extended him. I think IL
would be an amazing proposition 70 ask any court
70 entertain any action brought by him secure
the return q the money paid. OF its cro-
ceeds or profits.
There may be cases where. because OF mental
tncapactry on the part Of the and undue in
fUence on the part OF his paramount, gift Of the
former 10 her could be set aside and the amount
thereof recovered But that is IN the general rule
of law applicable to ali gifts made under such
circumstances in which undue influence is proved
TO have b4en the cause Of the gift It Is neces-
sary 70 invoke any unusual or novel rule OF law
10 sustain such an action But IN the case at bar
We have the claim pure and simple that the
money was extorted from the plaintiff by the de-
PENDANT Elias. and 1t seems TO be immaterisI
whether the plaintiff weak strong IN Body
and mind OF whether he was young or old. If he
paid this money because OF the defendants threats
10 expose him. and because OF mis- fear that she
would carry out this threat IL ne did meet
her demands for money, he IS entitled 70 the relief
he seeks.
II the defendant Elias acquired the plaintiff ;
money in the manner complained OF by him she
acquired il felOriOUsly. and money acquired and
the proceeds and profits thereof may be followed
by the real owner and recovered. and court OF
equity VIII impose a trust thereon in his favor.
II appears that when the plaintiff made some
OF the payments the defendant Elias consulted
who was IN adjoining or nearby
room II these payments were voluntary, why
the presence ceaTnssS OF q lawyer neCeS-
sary7