Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-12-10
ARGUMENT IN TOM
FRAUD CASE CLOSES
Decision Reserved by Vice.
Chancellor in 81 500 Suit of
Aged Woman.

Final argument in the suit brought
by Mrs. Johanna G. Tom, seventy
five years old, to recover $500 which
she claims she was defrauded Of in
the sale of her home. was heard to-
day before Vice. Chancellor Emery In
Chancery Court. Decision was re-
served, the vice-chancellor calling for
copies of the testimony given by the
aged woman a year ago. when 1t was
thought she was too Ill to appear in
court.
In December, 1911. Mrs. Tom nego-
tiated for the sale of her home at "a
Peat street to the defendant, Alex
Pier, of 287 Sixteenth avenue. The
purchase price agreed on was $3.50.
This was to be paid by Pier $50 in
cash at the time the agreement was
drawn, 81, 500 more in cash at the time
the deed was passed, and the pur-
chaser agreed to assume a mortgage
of $1,000 held against the property.
Mrs Tom now lives at AT South
Tenth street.
Adam ]. Rossbach, attorney for
Mrs Tom. commended that his client
received only $3.50 after signing
away her right to the property. Philip
]. Schotland, representing the de-
PENDANT, produced receipt alleged to
show that Pier paid the woman $1,000
in cash on February "a, 1912.
Mr.. Schotland IN summing up de-
clared that the court must either find
his client guilty of most outrageous
fraud, carefully planned and followed
up by studied perjury on the witness
stand, or that the defendants expla-
nation that Mrs. Tom put the money
away in some place and has since for
gotten where she left It. is true.
The bank books Of Piers accounts
in several banks were produced to
show that he drew out enough money
to pay Mrs. Tom the $1,000 and have
$500 left over. The latter sum, Pier
swore, was used In paying bills in
CURED by his wife while at New
York hospital. He could not remem-
Der the name of the institution al
though it was pointed out that the
sum mentioned would have paid for
Mrs. Pier treatment for q period OF
seven months.
In presenting his argument Attor-
ney Rossbach made a bitter attack
on the loose methods employed by
Pier and Clarence Wander Blatt, the
lawyer who represented Pier in the
alleged fraud. Mr.. Rossbach pro-
ceeded to tear apart the argument
made by Attorney Schotland. Incl
dent after incident in the transaction
was rehearsed to show that Pier. who
was evidently man OF considerable
business experience, failed to produce
any valid documents which would
prove the transaction to be an honest
one on his part.
The lawyer laid particular stress on
the alleged gross deception practised
on the aged Mrs. Tom by Pier. who.
the woman believed, was her personal
friend Pier asserted that he paid the
$500 In cash to Mrs. Tom at her
home while there Were no witnesses
present, and obtained q receipt at the
same time. Mrs. Tom swore that she
did not know that she was signing a
receipt for the money, but was told
by Pier that her signature meant that
she would surely get the $500.
Mr.. Rossbach asked that o decree
be granted Mrs. Tom establishing
her right to $500 lien on the Peat
street property and interest on the
amount for two years. The vice.
chancellor asked for copies of the
testimony and other exhibits. and an
nounced that he would reserve de-
cf5ion.