The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-08
MOTHER SUED FTNELITE TWICE
BEFORE NE ASCENDED THE
BENCH rs 4 MAGISTRATE,

% last, has been an ardent supporter OF
Magistrates Wahle, Walsh, Moss and
steinert in the political grab scheme to
put court attendants in these courts, a
scheme which was scotched by the Mayor
on Friday last. The records Of the Supreme
Court Of this division show that this Magis-
trate was charged twice by his own mother
with an attempt to defraud her. The
litigation over property which she charged
he had defrauded her OF lasted for several
years and finally died because Of laches,
a legal term meaning a delay in asserting
alleged rights that precludes review by
the courts.
Back in 1890 Lena Finelite, the mother,
began a suit in equity against Alexander
Finelite, the son, asking the Supreme
Court to declare that she was the rightsul
owner of a piece Of property which was
recorded in the Registers Office as be-
longing to Alexander Finclite. The facts,
as she alleged them, were that a certain
deed had been made by Jacob Finelite and
his wife Lena. the plaintiff, giving to her
the sole possession of a piece Of property
that formerly stood in their joint names.
This deed, Mrs. Finelite declared, had been
intrusted to her son, the defendant, for
safe keeping. But when Mrs. Finelite
had occasion to inquire into the manner
in which her son had managd his steward
shin she found that the deed contained
the name Alexander Finelite "a grantee
of the property. and furthermore the
deed had been recorded in the Registers
Office in the name of Jacob and Len Fine
lite, grantors, to AleXanderFlnellte, grantee
Mrs. Finelite charged that Ter son had
fra Idnlently erased her name from the
deed as grantee and written in his own
and thus caused thu altered document to be
recorded.
In reply Finelite ~retortei that though
as a matter OF fact the deed was originally
made out TO his mother as grantee she had
consent d TO the erasure OF her name apd
the substitution Of his. She denied any
such consent on her part, and there the
iss e was joined between them. Mrs.
Finelite, as the deed showed, could
not sign her name but could only make a
mark.
The suit was trick in the Supreme Court
In February, 1891, and the Court found
enough evidence |adduced by Finelite to
Justify the belief that Mrs. Finelite had
consented to the erasure Of her name and
the substitution Of her sons as grantee
IN Jut utSl. III III VIZ EDlllT w luClNN
to indicate that at a family confer, nc
held after the deed was drawn, Mrs. Fin =
lite had given her consent to the proposed
substitution for family reasons. Judg-
ment was given dismissing the suit. Mrs.
Finelite more than a year later asked
to ave the judgment r%eopenc1 and the
suit retired on the grounds that she was
now in possession OF new evidence. She
submitted to the Court evidence by two
new witnesses. One OF them, named Mar
gowski, declared that he was willing to
swear that Abraham Finelite, brother Of
Alexander, had made statements privately
to him, Margowski, which were quite in
with the testimD y given by
Abraham Finelite at the trial o! the suit.
These statements, Margowski said, would
20 show that there existed an arrange
ment, to which Alexander Finelte was a
party, to cheat the plaintiff, Mrs. Finelte,
Of the property named in the altered deed.
The other a%fiant, called Wilson, was will
ing to swear that he had held a conversation
with the defendant Alexander Finelite, in the
course Of which Alexander Finslite had
said that he would take the property away
from her (the mother even if he would
90 to States prison for it,"
Mrs. Finelite's application for the re-
of the judgment was denied at
Special Term and she appealed to the
Term. George w. Stevens argued
the appeal for her and Abram King APP
pesred for Finelite.
The decision OF the lower court was
affirmed at General Term. Justice O'Brien
the opinion of the court. He
out that Mrs. Finelite had delayed
her application beyond a reasonable tins
was therefore technically guilty of
On passing this over Justice
remarked further that neither
Margowski nor Wilson had been present
the family conference about the property
and therefore the Justices Of the General
Term did not consider the new evidence
sufficient to permit them to interfere with
the disposition of the suit made by the
court. |
1t was not until 1898 that this decision
was rendered, and meanwhile Mrs. Finelite
had begun another action against her son,
in which she once more accused him of
and ~defrauding her. By this time
the Hebrew community in which the Fine
lite family was known had been greatly
stirred by the facts, which were common
talk.
Mrs. Finelite's second suit was entitled
Lena Finelite VS.. Alexander and Elizabeth
Finelite, Elizabeth being he daughter of
Mrs. Finelite and the young lawyers sister.
Jacob Marks acted as counsel for Mrs.
Nnelite in this suit, while Alexander Finelite
appeared as attorney in person for himself
and also as counsel for his sister.
In the complaint, drawn by Marks and
signed by Mrs. Finelite with her mark,
she set forth that the defendant, Alex
ander Fnelite, was her son and had acted
40 her lawyer in some matters. In June,
1880, she said, she was negotiating TO puT-
a large tenement house at III and ia
Ridge street, and having the most implicit
'aith in her sons integrity employed him
o complete the negotiations and procure
Tor her a valid title to the property. The
purchase price which she had agreed to
pay was S32, 500, most Of which was to be
eft on mortgage.
For the set purpose Of defrauding her,
Mrs. Finelite went on to complain to tho
Court, her son had represented to her that
le could save her a great deal OF trouble
md many trips down town il she would
TO let him take title to the property
his name and execute the necessary
to that effect. Because Of her con-
in him and her reliance on his prom
sc that as soon as the title had been taken
he would econvey the property to her in
Ter own name she consented to the plan
"a koI cd f,rfb anil Ugy,a him eEnn vv;tb