The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1913-05-09
SCUDDER CRITICISES
COURT AND LAWYER
IN Di>mi>sino suit Justice
accuses II. II. Wilson Of
SupprcSsino Evidence.
EXECUTORS LIFE RUINED
Replying to Charges. Wilson
ATTRIBUTES Opinion to Per-
Sonal RancOr.

Supreme Court .Iustica Scild,ier IN an
opinion banded down in Brooklyn ves,er-
! day scored tho Appellate Division Of
Brooklyn. Associate Jus'ica Joseph \
Burr and tine llw frr or Coomha- 4
Wilson. Of which Ju-;c" Bur" wa<
I 'ormcrlr member
, The opinio" accotnpauit. dnrision
di-nissing suit brought h, Gnorgo W
seward to r""or 9. or1 rom Trsd'r,rl,
u 's~E"r. ani l. .ro Hr. B.. a ,nGu o.
iNsui,u 'An' Ie.lr sill, tine ..r.'i g.
Mrs wary hiu. q. Gr.,r ,pri. l..
in Mdv, ,8J5 ,ir name! be-. hrolr-r.
Buell. e. Davis. "a .Nrcu'or. iedv.rg -
her rel"tiveS and friends .he Sl5. 600 u.lI'"
which she had Inherited croih her husband.
! William 4 King 1t wt- the question ~
: to her right - ll~ur," " fu. prnuartv
hv will thar lod "i..h' t"ar- Of lilicatiou
IN 'hrc@ "p.rt" 10I ,H' .nprisorm"ut u'
Davi- i.s'ic" ~cldicr avs ~ part.
TIA" result i thu rni"r iudImen'
Of the courts og thi, - s'n ii,0"v - which
Buell. q Davis "a nN"rIt," 5" wa entitled
was taken from him 1uI given - tn"
plaintiff, T. whom il did not belong, he
WAS deprived o' hl- liberty wa- cast into
prison and was discharged thcretrom
broken in health stripped of his last cent
and injured in reputation
And the Appellate Division ~ it,
opinion !ind> no othrr authorit" tu Justify
It's approval of this Unjust ice than the
provisions of sections 1916 and 1850 of
tn" cod" of civil Procedure relating
to practice un Appeals
Justice. Scudder took th" ground that
an id"n' lcal iniusric" would hr done
laskrr If the complaint ol George "
Seward admiui-tratnr Of the estate
OF Mr. King wns NOT dismissed Seward
sued Davis ana obtained his commit m.nt
for contempt when he failed To turn over
the full 1rl"uu, OF the kng estdt. with
interest This was after til" case had
J been taken tu the Appellate Division
q twice and OuUe to the Court Of Appeals
One of IN" charges against DAVIS wa.
th8i hr had paid 81 900 10 Task cr a. a
counsel fee although not authorized to
do so IN view Ot the intDrpretat ION of
clause IN Mr. Kings will whereby Mrs
King was given merely a life interest
/ IN th" estate
/ Il was 10 recover this s. 900 from Tasker
that the suit just disposed of was brought.
IletiC" SCudd"r mentions the fact
& that supreme Court Justice Burr was
AT on" TIM" member of the law firm
. lI'hGh Ml'lNll NJ rLl'~ aHbll-' i'dNlS
and Ia-ker were brought uhat ot toombes
& Wilson, go Broadway. Wiiiianlsburg),
and probably assisted III interpret ing
I NJ. claus. in NJ" hing's will winch was
differently construed uy ia" Appellate
/ Division after III" firm had been displaced
as lawyers for the estate Of Mrs King
and had become lawyers for the estate
Of her husband
In referenc" To the conduct Of the firm
| he say- that Robert II Wilson conceaied
evidence for hVr yrar- which would have
resulted Ill speedy vlndIcatlon of Davis
/ II II had been produced before Justic.
Narean when the case first came up in
/ 1893
! Mr. Wilson criticised Justic. Scudder
very bitterly The Davis case. he said
| had been decided in their favor hy both
the Appellate Division and the Court of
! Appeals He was asked TO what he at
! irihut"d In" censorIous opinion
! lasker l. Il close personal friend of
his. Mr. Wilson replied, and has been
| for many wears"
Mr. Wilson was one of a committee who
/ complained TO the Bar Association re-
Gently about Justice Scudder's way of
conducting trials and the Appellate Di-
! vision recently sent a case back to the
Justice for retrial on the ground that il
had been tried too precipitatelv