Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-11-20
MULLINS EXPENSE
CLAIMS DISPUTED
final Argument in Estate Fight
Shows Heavy Expenses by
Local Undertaken.
SPENT $50 PER WEEK
AMONG HIS CUSTOMERS
Charge for Drinks, Cigars, Din
ners Meets With Objections
from Other Heirs.

The question of whether an under
taker is obliged to spend as much as
$50 a week on drinks, cigars, dinners,
etc, for customers, was among the
many things that were brought out In
the final argument in the case of
Peter M. Mullin, jr.. and Miss Marie
E Mullin against William F. Mullin,
an undertaken of 230 Lafayette street,
before Special Master Halsey Nj. Bar
rett yesterday afternoon. The COM
plainants, n younger brother and SIS
ter of the defendant, are bringing suit
for an accounting of their fathers
estate, of which William f. Mullin Is
the administrator. The item OF re-
freshments was referred to when
Michael J. Tansey counsel for the
plaintiffs. took exception to this
amount, which was estimated Dy
William f. Mullin in an account or
his expenditures in carrying on the
business of his deceased father. Mr..
Tansey spoke of the testimony or Jo-
seph j. Mullin, an uncle of the de-
PENDANT, and John ]. Mooney, both
reputable undertakes of this city,
who had testified In a previous hear
ing of the case that they had never
been obliged to spend cent In TINS
way.
Mr.. Tansey also took exception TO
the amounts specified by William f.
.Mullin for extra wagons, donations,
tickets, etc. Regarding the extra
wagons, counsel declared that 1t was
the custom of liyerymen TO furnlsn
these free of charge, in return for
coaches which the undertakers hired
of them. AS for tickets and dona-
tions. Mr.. Tansey declared he did not
believe an undertaken was required TO
spend n large sum of money on such
items in order to retain his business.
Ralph e. Lum, counsel for the de-
PENDANT, sought to refute figures cited
by Mr. Tansey in the morning regard
ing the profits obtained by Mr.. Null
lin from funerals which he conducted.
AS regarded the specific instances
mentioned by Mr.. Tansey Mr. Lum
said he did not dispute the fact that
they were funerals conducted by his
client, but claimed Mr.. Tansey had
selected the larger ones in which
there was more of a profit. He took
exception to the estimate of profit
placed by the opposing counsel on
outside boxes and caskets. On the
latter Mr.. Tansey had referred to
the testimony of Joseph ]. Mullin to
show that 200 per cent. profit was not
considered extraordinary from an
undertaker's standpoint, and from the
figures he had on hand he sought to
show that William f. Mullin made
as high as $50 per cent. profit on cas-
ketS
Mr.. Lum took exception to this. adj
hitting only a profit of from 10 to
125 per cent. The caskets had to
carry all the overhead charges with
which an undertaken was confronted,
and it was on these that his profits
were figured, Mr.. Lum commended.
Mr.. Lum declared that the important
features of the case were the profits
of his client, the amount he had ex-
pended on the maintenance and edu-
cation of his younger brother and sis
ter, and whether after these things
had been considered there would be
any balance. According to Lum there
would not be.
Peter M. Mullin, ST., left eight chill
Aren. All have received $3.50, with
the exception of the two plaintiffs
and sister, Miss Anna M. Mullin,
who received a part of that amount
Peter M. Mullin, jr., and Marie Null
lin seek to recover this amount and
the interest as their share.
The morning was taken up princi-
pally with arguments by counsel on
the amount of profit ACQUIRING from
haarses, buses, chairs, gloves.
cal7dlesticks, boxes, caskets and other
paraphernalia used in funerals.