The evening world., 1911-04-08
C0NS|D|NE Wins
POINT AGAINST
BROTHERS WIDOW
John RS Partner and Is
Entitled to Half Latter's
Estate, Referee Holds.

Tbs disputed right OF George r. Con
sidins to one-half interes. in the new
Metropolis Hotel. securities IN Mt. CIR
moi Cemetsry, Dreamland. Hanover
Theatre. Huntoon Spring water. Lone
Beach and the Metropolitan Jockey
Club. which were held in part by his
brother. John r. Consldine,
was settled to-day by Referees Joseph
NJ. Posshauer of tho law nrm OF James.
Schell d Rkus. to whom the adjust
ment of the legal tansle raised by the
widow OF John was referred by the
courts. Incidentally Lawyer Henry J..
Goldsmith. who acted for George +.
Considins. was indicated OF the acou-
sstion made by tho widow OF John n.
Considfne, who declared that she was
forced by the lawyer and George r.
Considine to sign important papers
transferring one-aaif of tho securities
held by her deceased husband TO George
Referee Passkauer holds tina George
+. Consid'ne was q partner OF John.
not only In the Metropolis Hotel. bu.
In The security holdings mentioned as
well. lie DEGREES. therefore, that one
half OF the disputed estate be turned
over to George Consldina
Widow Charged Trlckery.
Mrs. Lulu Tabor Considinc. widow
OF John. who was q w%ell-known sport
Ing man and who died in this city
june 20. 1909. complained that she was
upder n miSa nnrsh.p.io, ,.h., 49,
signed the papers prepared by Henry
j. Goidsmith for his client. She also
stated that she was told to 10 20
thu safe deposit company. open the
vault wherein her deceased husband
kept his. securities and mako inventory
Of tho contents. She was instructed
she said. to do 80 by Mr.. Goldsmith,
who she also alleged. carried away
all tho securities after she had In
vcntoried them. She admitted. how
eevr. before the Referee that Mr.. Gold.
smith advised her to take $4,000 In
bank deposited In the name OF her
deceased husband n that she did so.
Whom Mrs. Considine was Informed
by her counsel that she had signed
away half her husbands interests e
Nv H"r'"hu DrotHer hne spmplnlnet
that she had been imposed upon AM
that George Consldine a falsely pre-
tended that he was her husbands part
ner. All tho acts OF commission an,
omissions pcrpctrated. she ADDED. wG.,
tho work OF George considlne and AL
attorney.
This was alleged in the Surrogate
court. Prior TO this, however, the dis
puted securities had been deposited II
tho Hudson Trust Company. This wa
followed by an action In the Suprem,
Court brought by George Considln,
against the Hudson Trust Company, In
dividually. and as administrator OF IN,
estate OF George X. Considlne TO esta1
lLsh hs claim to half the estate.
Referee for George C%onsidine.
Referee Posskauer now decides tina
the partnership is proved by the two at,
torneNS who drew up the partnership
papers. and by tho testimony of EN-
ployees and other witnesses. OF whom
former state Senator William II. Rey.
noldS was one. II was shown that IN,
business letter-heads bore the names o
the brothers as propriciors, and tina
the Deceased had verified a petition foi
the reduction OF taxes on the Metropol,
Hotel. describing himself and the plain.
TIN as the ~lessecs.
II now remains for the court either 1,
approve or ~disapprove OF the hndlug,
OF the referee.