Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-04-04
MUNICIPAL FoRTUNE
CITY OF WINCHESTER BENIFI-
cIARY or SUM OF $3.50, 900.
Litigation Referred to Circuit Court
OF Alexandria County for Dstermi-
nstion-Unique Proposition.

a !.
versy OF exceptional character in the his
tory OF litigation In Virginia. invo,vlnp
both public and private property interests.
has been referred to the circuit court OF
alexandria county In an order transferring
the suit OF the Winchester Memorial Hos
pitai against the Handiey board OF trustees
and the city OF Winchester. trustee under
the Will of John Handley. from the circuit
court OF Frederick county to the Alexandria
Jurisdiction for hearing before Judge Chas.
f Nicol. The voiumineus documents In tho
suit have been received by Mr.. George II.
Rucker, the clerk OF the circuit court for
Alexandria county. by express from VIM
chester. The hearing viii occur at the next
regular term of the court the latter par-
OF this month, and probably be In progress
foi several days.
tuted by Robert NJ. Ward. an attorney of
the city of Winchester, TO collect a claim
Tor 5000 from the trustees of a fund or
$oooooo. bequeathed to the municipality OF
Winchester for phianthropic purposes
urder the viii of John Handley OF Scran-
ton, Pa. is being prosecuted by the VIM
chester Memorial Hospital as assignee OF
the claim of Mr.. Ward. Though the city
or winchester Is named as of the ie-
PENDANTS in the suit, the action in reality 10
against the Handley board OF trustees. 1t
IS claimed that the city owns the money and
that the Handiey board of trustees has 10
authority over 1t, except in admins
trative capacity.
At the hearing, In the Alexandria court
the complainant will be represented by At
torney w. Roy Stephenson of Winchester.
while Attorney Holmes Conrad and r. E.
Byrd. also of Winchester, will appear for
the defendants.
Removed From Frederick County.
1t is shown by the court records that the
cause was removed from the circuit court OF
Frederick county on account OF the refusal
NJ Ind Of tbat IA
preside at the hearing. Judge Harrison it
is said. considered that his personal inter-
ests in the issue made 1t improper for hin
to sit during the proceedings.
In the extended ayerments OF the bill or
complaint filed by Mr.. Ward and now taken
UP by the Winchester Memorial Hospital.
Is a story of rare municipal fortune in
which the city OF Winchester is beneficiary.
II Is set forth that under the Will of John
Handiey the sun, of $4,000 is iequeathed
to the city, the principal and interest, &C
cording to the terms of the bequest TO be
invested until the sum of S500,0De shall have
been accumulated. wllereupon 1t Is TO be
used In the erection Of public library. for
the free use of the people of the city for
ever" The balance of the estate of Mr..
Handley 1t is stated was also left to the
city for the education of the poor.
For the proper control and administration
of this legacy, the complainant staIas, the
general assembly of the state FEBRUARY IL,
1896. authorized the creation of the Hapdley
board of trustees. Subsequently the city OF
Winchester was called upon 70 defend ito
interests in the fund in the courts OF Scran-
ton, Pa. where proceedings were lnsti-
tuted to test the validity OF the legacy. Mr..
Ward at that time, he states, was corpora
ton counsel for the city OF Winchester. but
was employed to conduct the defense by the
city not In its municipal capacity. but as
trustee under the will of Mr.. Haadley.
Brought to Successful Issue.
In the proceedings, which were brought
g,, n cd
he states. extended services for the city and
for the collection of his fee he instituted
suit in chaneery In 1902. A decree, he
states, was rendered In the case March rs.
1903 adjudging him entitled to recei.a the
sum of $1,000 The city council o. VIM
chester, he adds, voted to pay him that
amount, but, he charges, the Handey
board of trustees refused to comply with
the award. The present suit was theredpon
filed. Prior to that, however, Mr.. Ward
had offered to assign his interests to the
Winchester Memorial Hospital, ana he as
signment was formally acceoted by the
trustees of the hospital December ii last
Attached to the order of assig 1ment Is 4
legal opinion summing up the points IL
yolyed in the suit. According to this state
ment which was obtained at the solicita-
ton of the board of trustees OF the hospital
for their guidance. the refusal OF the de-
PENDANT board of trustees to pay the award
was based upon the contention that the
money constituting the fund could he ar-
propriated only for the purposes provided
in the bequest and not for the purpose OF
defending legal attacks upon its validity.
This the opinion states. is a unique propo-
stion.
has attracted considerable attention
throughout the state Is awaited with In
terest