The Washington herald., 1911-08-05
HAVEMEYER HEIRS
SUED BY PARTNER
OF SUGAR KING
Col. A. NJ. Bliss Asks Share
of S500,000 Tract.
CLAIMS TACIT CONTRACT

A suit involving title and owner
ship to a tract of land located at
Pennsylvania avenue extended and
.Thirty-second street southeast, val
ued at approximately 100000, was
filed yesterday in the District Su-
preme Court.
EX-CONGRESSMAN PLAINTIFFS.
The plaintiff, vino is represented by
>ttorneys James B. Archer and John
lewis Smith. is Col. Archibald NJ. Bliss,
a resident of this city, and former Con-
gressman from Brooklyn. The defend
ants are Emily De l. HaVemeyer, widow
of Theodore F, Havemeyer; Theodore A
Havemeyer, Emil Potter, Blanca Duncan,
Theodore WinslOw. Marie Godfrey. Henry
o. Havemeycr. Frederic G. Havemeyer,
Amos T. French. Cammilla Beach, Emory
G. Hodges, trustee; Cameron McR. Wins
low. and John Mayer, trustee and ex-
ecutor.
The property includes tract of about
200 acres, subdivided into 900 lots, and
consists of the places known as Chi
chester" ''Nayior Farm" Discovery"
and the Perry Farm and begins on the
east side of Nayler road, extending along
the Marlboro road
Col. Bliss alleges that the defendants,
who are heirs OF Theodore \. Havemeyer,
refuse to recognize his legal rights TO
one-half of the property and asks the
court to restrain them from prosecuting
their action against him for the posses
cir nfr ri,. l,o
is an owner OF an undivided moiety of
the property.
Hearing Date Set.
Justice barnard granted the order and
Set September II as the date when the
case will be heard.
Col Bliss says that until 1899 he was a
member of Congress from the State of
New Yark and enjoyed close personal
and business relations with Havemeyer
10 such an extent to he almost brotherly
in character. Tavemeyer. Bliss con-
ttnues, was a capitalist engaged in large
enterprises and founder OF the sugar
trust and Col. Bliss claims that about
that time he was desirOus of investing
money in certain Washington real estate
for purposes OF exploiting the same.
That Havemeyer made use of him for
that purpose, is alleged by the plaintiff
che Bliss) having been up TO that time
a successful promoter of financial af-
fairs"
The sugar king and Bliss agreed on
April l, 1890, as claimed by the plaintiff
that Havemeyer furnish all the money
necessary to purchase a large tract of
land in East Washington for their mutual
benefit in equal shares. It was agreed
to place Bliss in possession. and that
Havemeyer would furnish money to de-
VplOT) a nd at he
1t was expressly understood that the
two were TO own and he tenants in equal
right Of the property, which was to be
graded. cleared. and suhdivided into lots,
and that water and light We're to be
secured; that railroad facilities were
TO be provided; that an inn or traven
should be built Al the expense Of Have
meyer and placed in the center of plain
tiff's lots, and that Havemeyer would loan
money at per cent to purchasers Of lots
to encourage the building of cottages
and homes on the land.
Pact Not in Writing.
It is stated by plaintiff that this agree
ment was not reduced to writing at the
time because Of the relations Of conf
dence and friendship existing between
them, although ii was Havemeyers in
tentiOn to execute the agreement shortly
before he died
Col. Bliss alleges that on April 19. 1890,
he purchased the property for about s65,-
C'o. Havemeyer furnishing the purchase
money; that title was taken in the name
of HavemeYer, with the understanding
that the property was owned in common
by both. Havcmeyer also furnished the
money for the erection of Overlook Inn
costing about 600, occupied ever since
by the plaintiff
Plaintiff claims he secured a charter
from Congress. after the death OF Have
meyer. for railroad privileges. but that
rival interests headed by w Butler Dun
can. got possession Of it and prevented
thereby the line from being extended to
the property. 1t is alleged that in Octo-
Der, 1897 Duncan. who is a son-in-Iaw Of
Havemeyer. withdrew all financial sup
port from the Overlook Inn and that the
defendants have filed in the Municipal
Court of the District a complaint against
the plaintiff for the possession of the
property as landlords. Bliss claims he
has been in possession of the property
ever since IL was purchased, exclusively
in virtue of his interests and equitable
title to an undivided moety.
It is contended by Col Bliss that the
defendants, as heirs of Havemeyer, hold
legal title to all this property as trustees
for themselves and for him to the extent
OF an undivided moiety. and he asks the
court to issue a decree to that extent.
A Work for Newsboys.
At a recent meeting Of the executive