Los Angeles herald., 1905-11-15
WOMAN 5 HEIRS
GET JUDGMENT
DECISION IS RENDERED IN
INGERS0LL SUIT
Judge Gibbs Declares Money Taken
From wife Of Defendant Was
Obtained by Undue influ-
enoe and Fraud

Final settlement Of the Ingersoll es.
tate was made yesterday when Judge
Gibbs of department two of the supe-
rIor court handed down his decision
in the suit brought by the Title In
surance and Trust company against G.
X. Ingersoll of Los Angeles, In which
he found for the plaintiff, giving Judg-
ment for $10,7S1.6O.
The Ingersol case has been one OF
the most important in the history OF
Los Angeles courts. On October Is
1903, Mrs. Rosette s. Ingersoll filed suit
for divorce against c. *. Ingersoll
The defendant was the cousin of the
late Robert G. 1ngersoll. This action
was followed by suit for money in
stituted against her husband by Mrs
Ingersoll for the recovery of 100000 of
her money which she alleged the de-
fendant refused to return to her.
Neither suit ever came to trial. just
when Mrs. 1ngersol was prepared to
appear in court she became i'll and died
several days later, after having made
will in which she left all her money
to relatives in Racine, Wis.
The Title Insurance and Trust COM
pany filed suit for recovery of the
money and that was heard several
months ago. During the trial, the rel
atives alleged that the couple were
married at Racine Wisconsin, in 1875,
and that several years following the
marriage Mrs. Ingersolls mother died,
leaving an estate of several hundred
thousand dollars of which 100000 in
cash went to Mrs Ingersoll.
This the wife turned over to her hus-
band for investment and according to
his statements, he invested in stock
of the National bank of Monrovia, the
Farmers and Merchants and the Sc
curity Savings bank of Los Angeles,
q NnnrnUia
mercial and Savings bank of Racine
and the National Bank of Long Beach.
In 1901, according to the allegations,
Ingersoll deserted his wife. The heirs
asked the court for an accounting of
the property and for the 100000 which
they alleged was due them by the will
of Mrs. Ingersol.
The opinion in the case was handed
down yesterday by Judge Gibbs, and
was as follows:
mo trust is established. Money has
no ear marks, and I cannot follow the
assumption that because Mr.. Ingersol
on a certain day received a certain
sum of Mrs. IngersolPs money, and
that on a certain other day, soon there
after. he bought certain property, that
he used the same money. 1t is true
that 1t looked suspicious, but the court
cannot fill the break in the evidence.
Finds Verdict for Plaintiff
"A husband cannot assume control
of his wife's money and by mixing it
with his own declare that it's Identity
being lost. by his act. that therefore
it is all his. am satisfied that Mr..
1ngersoll could not separate these in
terests If he chose; otherwise, how
could he say that he paid his wife
thirty dollars per month out of her
property?
This money was obtained by a spe-
cies of duress, fraud and undue in
f1uence. Mrs. Ingersoll not being pres
ent to testify, such transaction as
this would be looked upon with close
scrutiny, as it did appear that he was
the leading spirit also that she was
quite a different woman out of his
presence. And his presence and gen.
eral demeanor in court impressed me
that he was a crafty miser who was
fearful to allow his wife any control
whatever over money.
II shall assume that any money paid
by Mr.. Ingersoll to Mrs. Ingersoll for
monthly payments and for travelling
expenses was paid out of money first
taken by him from her. Under the
authority the plaintiff is in the position
of n general creditor.
Judgment will be for the plaintiff
for the sum of $1O,731.6O and interest
on sums aggregating that amount for
the past six years"