The Newtown bee., 1906-03-30
Ten Pages
TOWN TOPICS.
ON DREW CLAlr1
HEARD ON MONDAY AT THE BRICI
BUILDING.


BUILDING.
The arguments on the George A.
Drew claim against the estate of Caro-
line b. Sherman, before commission
ers, were given, Monday. Judge De-
Forest spoke for Mr. Drew and Samuel
Tweedy for the estate and it is consid-
cred by those who heard them. that
each lawyer did himself full justice,
presenting the different views of the
case in a logical and clear manner.
Each side took up the two hours to
which they were limited.
Each lawyer made numerous and CO.
piOus quotations from decisions in sup.
port OF their theories. Judge De-
Forest opened by stating that the
commissioners had equable powers and
1T was their duty TO exercise them:
that unless such claims had some re.
dress 1t operated as fraud upon them.
AS to the claim not being presented
earlier he argued that, strictly speak.
ing, the claim does not spring into be-
ing until after the death of the pro.
misOr and before that time no bill
could BE- presented. No accounts
were kept because the man who ex.
poets to be remembered by will does
not expect to make out accounts. In
this class of cases no account would be
expected, whatever the expenditures
or whatever the value of the services,
In this case of inestimable value to
the decedent. The proviso made by
Mrs Sherman stands uncontradicted;
the promise was made by both Mr. and
Mrs Sherman. Mr. Drew had been
brought up by them and it was natur-
al that they should have an affection
ffNP him O nd ho for fhoro srhn
mOny showed that they realized what
they had lost in letting Drew 20. They
found their need of a man, whom they
could trust, upon whom they could re-
ly. When he came back from Bridge
port he undoubtedly conferred a great
favor on them. Her relatives hau
their own interests to serve. To the
questions as to show how she came to
make remark as to disposition of her
property, no answer could be elected
from the witness. Brother Tweedy
did not put all these relatives on the
stand, because the frequency of their
opportunities would then appear
Mr. Tweedy's argument was briefly
as follows: Mr. Drew instead of bring
Ing his claim to the administrator
goes to Judge De Forest, prepares
claim and presents it. The first claim
~ AOA ~ S0AOy AAou 1000, UAC 0CCOlu 10
based upon an express agreement by
Mrs Sherman to give the property by
will. These are two distinct claims,
that are legally inconsistent and can
not be heard by the house tribunal
Mr. and Mrs Sherman, though dead,
speak In no uncertain terms. If they
had sincerely desired that this man,
Drew, should have the farm, it would
not have been left In this shiftleSS
manner. His claim is pure fiction.
How easy the opportunity! How great
the temptation! Eli B. and James
Beers both have sworn as to Mrs Sher.
mans intentions. Mr. Drew came to
them at between l3 and IA years OF
age. He has forgotten the benefits
conferred on him. He was and is a
mere tenant with exceptional advan-
taRes. In 1898 he left and remained
terms did he come back? They want
ed him because they did not have ef-
hcient help. The contract is indeti-
mite. He swears ''they said l should
be well paid" In July he went back
to them and in the following spring
be went to Mr. Glover's and worked
bis farm on shares. If there was a
contract he violated it. In speaking
of the farm Mr. Sherman said to bis
wife: "Mother, when you get through
With the farm you must give it to
George" He claims the value of the
farm for his services. Mr. Drew has
every reason, situated as he is. to pros
ecute this claim. II Mrs Sherm an
had been advised earlier to take re-
ce1pts, she would have had Drew over
whelmed with receipts. There were
settlements between the parties as
they went along. claim that this
man has been doubly, trebly paid
Beers Sherman spent 81, 600 while this
man was living with them. The pa
ing up Drew. Scrupulous honesty was
Characteristic of these people. AS
Stunning that there is something in
Drew's story, could he not have Kept
an account? l have never run in
against such a bold, bad, false claim
as this. The result of your delibera-
lions will be a positive disallowence of
both these claims. Judge De Forest
closed as follows: The status of this
claim Is not fixed by my brothers. de-
1t was unnecessary to
present the items as the claim is not
based on the contract. This bill of
particulars was furnished at Brother
,Iweedy's request. Has any one de-
AAOo uAO 1UcuS! LIZ ldCUS are SUD-
admitted. This action goes
on the theory that there wasn't any
contract. 1t was not necessary. Isn't
1t true that Mrs Sherman said to a dis
interested witness: "We have got
George back and we are going to keep
him?" Isn't it in evidence that Mrs
Sherman had great affection for Mr.
Drew's children? During the period
he was on the Platt and Murray farms
he went and helped them time and
time again. During all this time he
rendered services to them. II they
had cart loads Of receipts it would not
affect his right to this claim.
Mr. and Mrs William Kuschke, who occunv
the uPl er apartment at s35 Housaton ave-
n n bridgeport. were taken to the Bridge
port hospital; Monday noon. suffering from
Tuesday evening. MI Kusrhke
and his wife had regatned partial Conscious
ness, ard It Is supposed that all dang r is
past. Mr. Kuschke and wife were the Victims