The daily morning journal and courier., 1904-12-30
BUSTED YS. HARRISON.
INTERESTING DECISION HANDED
 DOWN YESTERDAY

By Judge Gager in the superior Court
 Question of AGifts Discussed at
 Length-E1-Judge Harrison Sued as
 Exeeutor of Estate of Margaret A.
 Jones of Branford-PIaintiG Claims
 That Her Own Personal Monies and
 Stocks Had Been Taken as a Part of
 Mrs. Jones' Estate.
 Judge Gager handed down a decision late yesterday afternoon in the superior court in the case, of Margaret A. Illus ted vs. ex-Judge Lynde Harrison, ex- ecutor. The decision is lengthy one and of considerable interest, The com plaint filed by the plaintiff states that Judge Harrison was the executor of the last will and testament of Mar garet A. Jones. deceased, late of Bran ford. The plaintiff to the action is Mar garet A. Husted of New York city, a niece of Margaret A. Jones, and the plaintiff was named after her. During Mrs. Husted's entire life the plaintiff was on intimate terms with her, each reposing implicit confidence in the other. but both without business experience or knowledge of law.
 Mrs. Jones died at her home in Bran ford on March r. 1904. leaving a will in which Judge Harrison was named as exeeutor.
 Nine years ago Mrs. Jones deposited In the Providence Institute for Savings, in New York city. $1,S09 in her name and in the name of the plaintiff, with the understanding "either to draw Mrs. Jones and the plaintiff also hired a safety deposit vault of the Metropolitan Safe Deposit company, in which to lock some valuable papers. The bank book was placed there and this, the plaintiff ignorant of her rights, gave to the defendant after the death of Mrs. Jones. The bank book was plac- ed there as gift.
 A demand made by the plaintiff for the bank book was refused by the de- fendant.
 A claim for one-haH of the money, s6545O, was presented to the defendant by the plaintiff in August. 1904. Notice or ulSd1lOWdnce was gwen.
 The second count of the complaint states that prior to December, 1903, the plaintiff had $500 cash. She entered into an agreement with Mrs. Jones to de posit this sum in the Greenwich Saw ings bank of New York city in trust for Mrs. Jones. Mrs. Jones also had a large deposit in the same bank, and she gave the plaintiff written order with the understanding that the plain tiff should transfer the same to her book to be held in her name in trust for Mrs. Jones, the total sum of both deposits amounting to $1,SO57S. After the death of Mrs Jones the plaintiff withdrew the money for the defendant. The plaintiff endorsed a cheek for Ed ward F. Jones, the husband of Margaret A. Jones' The plaintiff afterwards made demand of the defendant for her part of the money, se965O. This de mand was refused. KY.
 The third count alleged that in 1900 the plaintiff and Margaret A. Jones en- l tered into an agreement in which the plaintiff should transfer eighteen shares of stock into the name of Margaret | A. Jones. and that after the transfer lupon the books of the company Mrs Jones should execute writing by which, In the event of the death of Mrs 1 Jones prior to that of the plaintiff, Mrs Jones agreed to leave a paper showing the plaintiffs right to the stock. After the death of Mrs. Jones no such paper was found. The plain \ tiff then made demands for the cers i tificate and the demand was refused. l The plaintiff demanded $3, 900 damages on the first and second counts and the eighteen shares of stock on the third count
 Judge Gager states in his decision I that the action is based upon three counts and 1t raises in all its counts l the question of gift. Tn the first count lit is gift from Mrs Jones to the plain- tiff, and in the second and third counts gifts from the plaintiff to Mrs. Jones were claimed. The first count indicates an intent of gift but that intent is not complete until the intent has been man. lifested by some act or statement in- I dicating the actual giving as distir- l guished from intending to give. The burden of proof is upon tine plaintiff. I Her case does not show any act or conduct on the part of Mrs. Jones that a present gift was intended. Her con q duct is more consistent with desire and intent to keep control of the whole Iof this deposit while she lived than lwith the notion of completed gift at the time of the deposit. The only thing that is relied upon is the deposit of the bank book in safe deposit box in New
 York rented jointly by the plaintiff and Mrs. Jones. If 1t had been in the plain- tiff's own box without further explana- tion there might have been something lin the claim, but Mrs. Jones had the same right to use the box for her pur- poses as had the plaintiff. The claim is < also made that deposit in their joint thames is sufficient. There may be one or two authors to this effect, but the weight of authority is against it.. Judg- ment on this count is therefore given
 in favor of the defendant.
 Second count--All the plaintiff claims of the funds described in the second count is the sum put into 1t with the Interest, the whole amounting to $696.50. ITO this she is entitled and judgment lnL | j t4 . N NE