Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-01-05
s796 VERDICT
ON NOTE GIVEN
TO AID BROKER
Claim Grows Out OF Tangled
Financial Affairs of Edo
ward Duffy.

Edward i. Duffy, the stock broker
whose financial troubles nave been fire.
quently aired in the courts, continued
today in the Supreme Court circuit, be-
fore Judge Heisley and a jury, to give
his testimony in the suit to recover
500 on a note made by Mrs. Catharine
IeaIny, Of 26 Or, cans street, his mother
in-law. William II. Mullin, a funeral
director in the eastern section of the
city, is the plaintiff in the case and the
defense is that Mrs. Leamy received
no consideration on the note. 1t is also
claimed that her act was not volun-
tary. but that she made the note by
reason of threats made to her son-in-
law that unless she di SO Mullsn
would have him indicted IL put in
Jail.
The note was made May u, 1907, by
Mrs Leanly. was Endorsed by Duffy
and was originally for 81. 200, but there
is a credit of 500. reducing the amount
TO 500.
After the testimony had all been
heard Judge Heisley directed thai a
verdict for 1896. 26 be returned in favor
of the plaintiff. The jurors did not even
leave their seats. The verdict was for
the 500 demanded, with interest.
.Duify's testimony was in line with
the opening of his mother-in-law's.
counsel, Frank e. Bradner. namely,
That he and Mullin had joint transac-
tons in Public Service Corporation
stock. buying 453 shares between them
when there was a violent drop" as he
put it. and all the none was practi-
cally lost and the stock was sold by
the banks that held it.
"Mul1in," so Duffy testified, claimed
that he lost $4,000. and. despite the
troubles l already had, he wanted me
to give him notes. He said he would
accept S1.2o0 If my mother-in-law be-
came the security. 7 consented after
he said he would see TO it that | would
not be indicted by the grand jury in a
case growing out of the Public Service
stock transactions. .
Il was IN AFFECT fear" insisted
Duffy. when he promised me immu-
nifty If I would give him the note.o
After Mr.. Bradner had asked Duffy
whether he had told his mother-in-law
about the alleged threats OF a grand
jury indictment, there We a long ar
gument over the question as to whether
the doctrine of duress in this State ex-
tended to anyone outside of a blood
relation. and this was finally settled by
the judge agreeing with Ralph f. Llm.
counsel for the plaintiff. who held that
it did not.
This" commented the court, would
offer another opportunity in this COM
mercial age of unsettling and IMPAIR
ing the validity of such papers if the
doctrine is extended to any other than
q blood relation. / believe that there
is no authority in this State for ex-
tending the doctrine. At the same time
while much may be said in favor of {,
much may be said against It,"
Mr.. Bradner had argued that it was
the act of Mrs. Leamy in signing the
npte that was Being passed upon. and
that the only thing to be considered
was her state OF mind at the time, and
not how it was induced, while Mr.. Lum
opposed the argument. citing his au-
thorities
Finally Duffy was asked by MIR. Brad
ner-"Did you give the note of $1,000
yourself to Mr.. Mullin?"
Il think So" was the answer.
did o lave n conversation with
Mr.. Mullin about whom you would get
on the note?"
Il tried several people outside was
the answer, before l decided on my
mother-in-law. / told him ! felt she
would do it.
The cross-examination was then
taken ur by Mr.. Lum.
When Mrs. Leamy went on the wit
ness stand she admitted, on cross-ex-
animation by Mr.. Bradner, that she
had been sued once before on the note,
andethat $500 had been paid on it.
do you know what became of it?"
asked Mr.. Bradner.
mo, sir"
She added that she had no communi.
cation with anybody about the $500, ex-
cept with her son-in-law.