Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1914-07-14

Mr.. Donnelly has money enough 10
begin some more litigation.
But is it settled? The newspapers
said it was settled six years ago, ana
most of them ran editorials about its
taking seventeen years to determine
a point of law. 1t is rumored both
here and in Albany, where Mr.. NC
Ardle lives, that these brothers-in-
law do not like each other. II that
is so, the case may soon come 10
light again, clothed in a nice, new
legal dress.
There are many ways to get rich.
The best and safest way is to pick
out rich parents some time before
YOU think of being born. Another
way, somewhat less certain, is to mar
nv a rich wife. A third-not to De
to marry the sister
of an exceptionally clever man and
ask your brother-in-law to act as
your instructor on the subject of mon
ey-making.
1t was in 1880 that Patrick McArdle
began to show Michael Donnelly how
TO get rich. They were partners then
in the iron business in New York
CITY. Both were considered wealthy,
but Donnelly didn't know much about
the latest tricks in business. One day
McArdle had his brother-in-law sign
some papers.
1t took the court just seventeen
years to find out what those papers
meant. Since then the courts have
spent six years debating whether they
did find out what they meant.
The papers looked like a bill Of
sale. They were a bill Of sale with
this difference-they were not a bill
of sale. They gave all of Donnellys
interest in the iron business to Nc
Ardle-only they didn't. Donnelly said
that he signed them relying on NC
Ardle's assurance that they would be
held only as security until some A.
nancial troubles blew over. McArdle
was showing him how to get rich.
Then McArdle set out to show his
brother-in-law how to stay rich. One
good way to stay rich is to fire your
partner out of the business. Nc
Ardle showed Donnelly how to do
this by doing it. Instead Of thanking
McArdle for this simple demonstra-
ton, Donnelly went to see a lawyer.
The case of Donnelly VS.. McArdle was
on. This was in 1891. Donelly sued
for an accounting Of the co-partner-
ship and a distribution of the assets.
The case came before Justice Bar
rett in special term, and Donnelly
started to explain the transaction in
which he and his brother-in-law had
figured.
Enough" said Justice Barrett be-
fore Donnelly had gone very far. 1T
seems to me that this partnership
has been engaged in an unlawful busi-
ness and l shall not assist either par
ty. l dismiss the action" Smith,
Bowman & Gloss, Donnelly's attor-
neys, refused to have anything more
to do with the case.
1t is interesting to note that the
prosecutor of Michael Donnelly in the
magistrates hearing subsequently be-
came Justice of the supreme court and
signed the final order giving Donnelly
his verdict. 1t was Barlow S. Weeks.
AS soon as Donnelly was acquitted
he appealed his case against NC
Ardle and also made a motion to
amend the judgment of dismissal.
The appeal was never heard. The
motion was denied.
1t does not look as though Don
nelly had much of case now does
it? Wait a minute before answering.
Donnelly went to another lawyer,
Joseph H. Choate. Mr.. Choate moved
before Justice Barrett to reopen the
case. In 1895, Justice Barrett re-
versed himself and granted the mo-
ton. McArdle appealed to the APP
pellate Division, but the order was af-
firmed.
In 1898, McArdle's lawyers moved
TO send the case to a referee. The
motion was denied by Justice Werner
and the second trip to the Appellate
division was made. McArdle lost the
appeal. Mr. ChOate then became am
bassador to England. and James,
Schell & Elkus became Donnelly's
attorneys.
The trial of the case began before
Justice Slower in 1898. 1t had taken
Donnelly seven years to get into
court. The next October, Justice
Stover decided the case in favor of
McArdle. Col James appealed to
the Appellate division in behalf of
DonneIly. Then Col James died and
Joseph F. Daily became Donnelly's
attorney. The case was young yet.
The Appellate division reversed JUS
tice Stover and ordered a new trial.
The next trial occurred before JUS
tice MacLean, with Osborne < Hess
as attorneys for Donnelly. After Civ
ing the matter due consideration, JUS
tice MacLean found as follows:
"Dignified or classified or magni-
fed by any names. the business of
Mr. Donnelly & Co., was dealing in
Junk. effects nondescript, saving the
truism junk is junk aptly to be
known, were the term translative as
articles of occasion. more multifar-
ious than the merchandise of de-
partment store, but a business con-
Quoted very differently in ways
many"
That is not all that Mr.. Donnelly
learned by sixteen years of litigation.
"Cnmarketed junk" this distinguish
ed jurist ruled, lis not closed out
with the season. Much of it goes to
the junk mans place, because else 1t
can go no whittier. save to the waste
gatherer, whose dumps are not des-
pissed provision"
Mr.. DOnnelly himself was convinced
by this time that junk was junk.
What the law is he refused to say.
But inasmuch as Justice MacLean fol-
lowed up his findings by giving judg-
defendant DnnnpllV ln-