New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-01-23
JUDGMENT

Has the bar OF Brooklyn any constituencies to
the honor OF its own membership? Does the
District Attorney of Nassau County hold office
merely to send poor rascals to Jail for assault
and petty larceny? Is there no one with public
spirit enough to bring serious abuses to the at
tention of the Appellate Division of the SUI
preme Court in the Second Department as the
disciplinarian OF the legal profession? These
questions are forced upon US by the reading OF
the official records of the Supreme Court in the
County Of Nassau, which reveal q situation that
cannot continue to exist without discredit to
all those whose duty it is to protect the honor
Of the bar TO enforce the criminal law.
In April last Justice WilmOt NJ. Smith, Of the
Supreme Court tried an action brought by the
children and heirs OF the late Mrs. Marie 4.
Valentine TO clear cloud from their title to
certain lands OF which she died seized. That
cloud was what purported to be n deed from
Mrs. Marie A. Valentine TO Mrs. Elizabeth III.
Valentine, the mother of her husband, Benjamin
T.. Valentine. Mrs. Elizabeth III. Valentine was
about ninety years old, and her business had
been managed for many years by her son. who
also for a long time had charge OF his wife's
affairs. The deed was dated May %. 1893. its
signature, according 10 the records OF the SUI
preme Court, purported TO II acknowledged on
tlIdl N1y ny DtuJdIuiu T. fitHtlut US loNdEY
He had It placed ON record IN the clerks office
of Nassau County June 81. 1900 seven years
after its purported execution and ten months
after the death of Mrs. Marie A Valentine: also
on that day making proof OF acknowledgment
subscribing witness, and swearing that he
was present and saw his wife execute the
deed Justice Smith on August 10 1862
gave judgment that the deed was spuri-
ous fraudulent and void, and that the
signature to said instrument is not the genu-
zine signature Of Marie A. Valentine, and said
deed Is not and never was q valid instru-
"ment." In his opinion, after giving reasons
for thinking the signature not genuine review
ing the testimony OF Mr.. Carvalho and Of the
paying teller of the trust company where Mrs
Valentine long kept an account Justice Smith
said:
1t is fact entitled TO some weight upon this
issue that no expert was produced to testify to
the genuineness OF the disputed signature, al
though II appeared that the defendants attorney
was IN consultation with an expert during the
progress of the trial, presumably for the pur-
pose or procuring such testimony. There is
other evidence in the case which is strongly con-
frnlatory of the spuriousness of the deed in
question The defendant is the mother OF de-
fendants attorney. She is a woman over ninety
years OF age. Defendants attorney has power
OF attorney, by virtue Of which he has absolutely
controlled his mothers real and personal estate
for at least thirty years. A conveyance to his
mother ia for all practical purposes convey
ance to him. He has always had control OF the
deed in question The deed purports TO be exc
cuted May %, 1893; II was recorded June
81 1900. BY deed dated November 81, 1897, Mrs.
Marie A. Valentine conveyed to Samuel p
Hinckley, for the consideration Of 81, 100 por-
ton of the premises which purport to have been
conveyed by her to the defendant by the deed
in question. 1t is not reasonable to believe that
she would convey by q full covenant warranty
deed land she had previously conveyed TO her
nOther-fn-law and lands to which she had
title. After the death of Mrs Valentine, defend
ants attorney, in n suit against him for an ac-
counting of his wife's estate, charged with
the receipt of the 81 100 consideration for the
Hnckley deed agent for his wife IL genu-
PENDANT, had been in existence at the time of
the execution of the Hincley deed. its production
upon the accounting would have been a perfect
defence TO this charge OF 81 100 against him. No
the children OF defendants attorney against him
concerning the same Cedarhurst property. tried
in this court and decided in favor of the
plaintiffs, and the decision recently affirmed by
the Appellate Division, the production of q gem
uine deed to the defendant executed before the
death OF Marie A. Valentine would also have
been a perfect defence to the action. No such
deed was then produced.
Here is q solemn judgment of the Supreme
Court to the effect that Benjamin Il. Valentine
is guilty of forgery. Even If he did not him
self write the signature adjudged to be spurious
as the purported witness and acknowledging
notary he knew whether or not it was genuine.
At the trial last April he put this off as q
genuine deed and sought to hold property by it,
thereby under the law, If he knew it was spu-
rious, committing forgery. He also in 1900
caused this deed to be recorded In Nassau
County, himself making proof of acknowledge
ment subscribing witness, an act which was
criminal if the deed was not really executed in
his presence by Mrs. Marie A. Valentine for he
then swore that he "was present and saw her
execute the same" Benjamin Z. Valentine is
a member of the bar of Brooklyn. At the De
cember term of 1896 he was suspended from
practice for two years by the Appellate Division
for improper transactions. More recently Jus
tice Maddox, in a decision of another matter
In which he was involved. declared that his
conduct was most reprehensible and that he
should be dealt with by the Appellate Division"
Yet nothing was done. More than five months
have now elapsed since the decision of Justice
Smith was handed down, and nothing is done