Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-04-07
eee~~e@@ee~~@eAooe~~1e~~1S
: Important Decisions
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..

Testator created a spendthrift trust
FOR his son for life, the principal to go
to his children at his death. The trus-
tee WAS directed to pay out of the in
come tn the son amy amount not TO eX-
ceeI $1,000, and any income in excess
thereof was to be invested for the BEN
eft OF the trust. Thereafter, by a cod
icil, testator revoked the devise In
trust, and directed payment by his
executor to the wife and children OF
the son not less than S1,500 nor more
than $1,000 per year--the payments to
continue during the life of his son and
his wife. or either of thenl-and on the
death of the son one third interest in
the estate WAS to go to his children.
1t also expressly revoked any devses
for his son contained in his will. The
husband and five children survived the
wife, and the income OF the share was
in excess of $4,000 Held, that a valid
trust existed for the sons share, tho
he survived his wife. Notwithstanding
the codicl and the substitution of 9TH
ei' payces in the place Of his son.
In re Kings estate. SO Att. 1106,
Pa.)
FRAUDULENT DECISIONS.
father conveyed tract of proper
ty to his son, worth, according to a
commended estimate, $4,000, which,
however, was subject to mortgages ex-
ceeding $4,000. in consideration of a
discharge OF debts amounting to at
least $4,000, the payment of other debts,
and life support. The recited consid-
GRAFTON of the deed was $4,000 In cash.
The deed waa recorded, and the son
entered into possession and enjoyment
of the property and there was no evil
dence that he accepted the conveyance
with a design to defraud other credi-
tors of the father. Held. that the con-
vayance was not fraudulent as to such
other creditors. Commonwealth Bank
vs.. kearns, SO Att. 1910 (Maryland).
DIVORCE-DESERT
Defendant left his wife, the COM
plainant, to seek employment at dis
tant point, but he was unable to do so,
owing to his dissipated habits and
failed to care for his wife in any way,
though he continued to write her af-
fectionate letters. Complainant filed
q bill for divorce alleging desertion
Held, that she was entitled to same,
and that it was not her duty, under
the circumstances, to seek out her
husband and ask reunion. Coe VS.. Coe,
SO Att. 1859 IN. ~
LOSS OF TICKET.
Plaintiff purchased of defendants
agent at Fort Worth ticket emitting
her to transportation over defendants
line to Dallas. When she arrived at
an intermediate station, she lost her
pocketbook containing her ticket, trunk
check and all the money she had with
her. She went to the ticket agent of
the defendant company at the station
in question, and he assured her that
and she again boarded the train, and
when the conductor demanded her tic
ket she explained the fact of it be-
ing lost, etc, but the conductor ord
cred her to leave the train, which she
did, rather than be put off. She
brought this action for damages. Held,
that the fact that her trunk was check
ed from Fort Worth to Dallas was
not such evidence to the conductor of
the train from the intermediate sta
ton to d that she had had ticket as
to render it unlawful for him to put
her off for failure to produce her tic
ket or fare. Further, that the con-
ductor was not required to accept
jewelry as pledge for her
fare, rule of the company requiring
a ticket or fare in money. Texas &
p. Railway VS.. Smith, "a, s. W., $50
(Tex.).