New-York tribune., 1910-02-01
NO GIFT To STRAUS
SO SAYS Mr.. NATHAN
Denies That CIeUeldnd Cottage
Has So Best0red.

Clarence 7 Shearn. as counsel for Nathan
st-aus. and Samuel Unternyer. represent
ing Max Nathan, his son. Alfred c'than,
and the Lakewood Hotel Company. in
dulged IN a long argument before Justice
tserar1 in the Supreme Court yesterday
over the motion of Mr.. Straus to make per
rnanent 4 temporary injunction granted by
Justice -Hendrick restraining the other par
ties to the action from ejecting the tu-
herculosis preventorium for children from
the Cleveland cottage at, Lakewood, y. j.
Decision was reserved
Nr. Untermyer opened his argument in
opposition 10 a continuance OF the fnJunc-
ton by asserting that the case should have
been brought in New Jersey He submit
ted sn affidavit by Max Nathan In when
he told the history OF the Lakewood Hotel
Company. which was organized twenty
years ago. with a capital OF SSOO.e1 or
which Mr. Straus owned half the STOCK
The cottage OF the late Grover Cleveland
vas bought for 5000. The hotel continued
under the management OF the company
when Mr. Straus and Mr.. Nathan bought
Fl in at foreclosure sale The de1enoanI
Nathan denied that he had given the PLAIN
Tiff Straus. the cottage
NJ Tnternver called q meeting OF dlrec-
tors Of the hotel company in December. at
which only the Nathan interests were rep
resented, and the ejectment proceedings
we're decided upon. Mr.. Nathan said that
ne sided with the people Of Lakewood III
their opposition 10 the preventoriun. sus-
gesting Pine Woods as q suitable place
for il
Mr.. Sbearn said that he wanted to cor
rect e mistaken idea with regard 10 the in
stitution. No children afflicted with tuber-
culosis. he said. were accepted at the pre-
zentoriurr. but those who lived under un-
sanitary conditions or whose parents were
afflicted are sent there. The opposition,
said tie lawyer. was based on false prenli-
ees Mr. Shearn attacked the genuineness
Of the present Lakewood Hotel Company.
saving ii was not bona fide company. He
said he could see no harm in keeping the
Injunction in force in view Of the fact that
the case involved e charitable institution
Justice Gerard held that the fact that the
subject OF litigation was charitable in
s1i;ution could not be taken into considera-
ton by the court
Nr Nathan denied in his affidavit that he
and Mr. Straus ever acquired the property
of The Lakewood Hotel Company and that
h gave The plaintiff the Cleveland cottage,
which is part OF the hotel property. He
assumed. said Mr.. Nathan, that when Mr..
Straus or his family occupied the cottage
he paid the hotel company for It's use, as
cid he when his family stayed at Lake
uood-
He told of a conversation in which he
said Mr. Straus said he wanted 10 buy the
cottage because Of mis- friendship for Mr.
Cleveland. II was not until the spring Of
1eoa said Nr Nathan, that he learned OF
Nr. Strauss intention Of establishing the
preveutoriurn- Mr.. Nathan objected at
the same time sympathizins with the idea.
and promising financial aid If it was estao-
lished in another place
According 10 Mr.. Unternlyer, Mr.. Nathan
made q proposition 10 Mr.. Straus that they
give So5OGl0 TO obtain another site. Mr..
Jntermyer also fnnpugned Ny. Strauss mo-
1ives in establishing the institution.
= don't understand how. on the merits"
said Justice Gerard 10 Ny Shearn, you
an make out q case You must prove a
gift from Mr.. Nathan to Mr.. Straus, and
ATr. Nathan says there was never any gift
AIr. Strauss letter written last October,
long after you claim tbs gift was made,
saws: You viii have TO fix the price OF
this property If ] am 10 take it Now, Is
this consistent with the fact OF d gift made
before that
Nrr. Shearn said that a man could make
: rarole sift Of real estate to another, such
IS giving him full control, enjoyment and
disposition Of it for one. two, three. i've
years or for life or during their joint con-
t-ol. reserving TO himself the power to sell
the property
Now you are changing your argument
You contended there was an absolute gift
replied Justice Gerard
Nr. Shearn denied that he had ever said
there had been an absolute gift Of the
property or that he ever Intended TO do So
He then cited cases 10 prove his Conten-
iicn.
You cannot expect ne TO do anything
~ = motion Of this sort" said Justice
Gerard except TO administer the law of
New Jersey as I Understand il It strikes
ne as being Absolutely abhorrent under
our law 10 hold that your contention Is
correct 70 decide -.-ti you would be to
repesl our whole real estate law"