Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-03-21
SAYS BRANDT GIRL
.SACR|F|CEDR|GHTS
N. Y. Appellate Court Hears
Lawyers in Fight for ZiegIer
Fortune Share.

NEW YORK, March 21.-The ap-
peal of Miss Florence L. Brandt, sis
ter of William ziegler. jr.. heir of the
$4,000 900 estate of William Ziegler,
the baking powder manufacturers was
argued yesterday before the Appel
late Division. which reserved deci-
sion. Miss Brandt's appeal was from
a decision of Surrogate Fowler. which
held that the action of Surrogate
Thomas in abrogat!ng Miss Brandt's
adoption by Ziegler WAS valid.
Miss Brandts mother IS now Mrs.
conrad Haney. She was divorced by
George W. Brandt. her former nus
band, and is believed to be residing in
California. She formerly lived at 217
Lincoln avenue, East orange.
John NJ. Bowers argued the case for
young Mr.. Ziegler and Harry 5. Me-
cartney argued for Miss Brandt.
Miss Brandt and her brother We're
adopted ut the same time. She failed
to live In harmony with her foster
mother and went back to her father
She is now a kindergarten teacher in
Davenport. Iowa. Mr.. Bowers said
yesterday that up TO the time her
brother became OF age and demanded
an accounting of accumulated inter
est on his estate from the trustees,
who had held 1t during his minority.
Miss Brandt had taken no steps to
set aside the abrogation of her adop-
ton. He said that this might merely
be a coincidence.
Mr.. Bowers argued that Miss
Brandt had lost her rights by failure
to prosecute them. He said that she
was sixteen years of age, old enough
to know her mind, when she decid-
ed she would leave the luxurious
Ziegler home here to live with her
father in the Central West. After
she had been six months with her
father. and had a chance to know the
difference between the two kinds of
life, she came back to New York, but
went back to the Central West again,
cheerfully and without "A protest. For
many years she had been a school
teacher, travelling about the country,
ana able to consult lawyers, SO that
she might have brought the suit with
IN the legal period of five years after
attaining her majority. Still, he said,
she failed to do so.
In his argument. Mr.. Bowers also
asked what good 1t would 10 Miss
Brandt to be renstated as the daugh-
ter of the late Mr.. Ziegler. He said
that an adopted child had no better
rights than one born to q testator
testator might cut off the adopted
child as readily as one OF his own
blood
Answering Miss Brandt's contention
that the abrogation was invalid, be-
cause her mother who had consented
to the adoption, had not consented to
its abrogation. Mr.. Bowers said that
the consent of the mother to the
adoption was a superfluity. since at
the time Mrs. George w. Brandt had
been divorced as guilty of adultery,
and under the law her consent was
not required either to the original
adoption or to the abrogation. He
said that the consent to the adoption
filed with the adoption papers had
been obtained before the divorce be-
came effective.
Mr.. Mccartney said that Surrogate
Thomas's action in abrogating the
adoption was void because 1t was
contrary to the best interests and
welfare of Miss Brandt, which the
courts are required to protect In
adoption proceedings. In the briei
in her behalf strong objection was
made to the assertion of Surrogate
Fowler that the guilt of mother cut
her off from any interest in her child