New Britain herald., 1915-05-27

CdoS uT lIIe necessary aiicSallOHSs ; secondly, if their evidence is correct and by B. Clark, yet Bernard is not Joined. The suit was brought with out consulting the old man until they needed him as witness, yet he Is a part owner and should have been joined; thirdly, as MT. and Mrs. Clark were married in 1866 and Mrs. Clark had a little livery business which, according to the old custom, he thought belonged to his wife too and she, like good wife, looked after it.
 Their marriage was under the law not accumulate any profits for her self This law was not changed un- til 1877. Therefore, argued Lawyer Hart, Mrs. Clark could not have legal " had any part in that business and during his life the husband owns the business and property absolutely.
 The plaintiffs are arguing by the inverse method, concluded Lawyer Hart
 Attorney McDonough Replies.
 Tn reply Lawyer McDonough, for the plaintiffs, argued to show that by his negligence Bernard Clark has forfeited his rights as statuatory trus- tee. The plaintiff did not try to show that Joseph Clark does not own half interest in the livery bus mess by virtue of the bill of sale rom his father. The claim is that he has no right to the half interest of the business which belonged to hls mother and naturally goes to her estate.
 Judge Futile said that the only aues- ton Tn his mind is whether or rot Mrs. Clark ever really had a legal half interest in the business. Att torney McDonough argued that it is Tor the jury to decide whether or not Mrs Clark had a half interest in .he business.
 There are three aspects of the case, said MT. McDonough, first, did Ber- nard Clark have the right to divert part of his property to his wife; if he did the second point would be whether e not Joseph Clark illegally took possession of this property: and thirdly. If he did what damages should he pay.
 Recess to Investigate.
 Judge Futile said the case should not have been tried by the jury in the first place as leaves him to decide an important question without inves- tlgat1on He was not sure whether or not Mrs. Clark even had an actual and clear title to a part of the bus mess. At 11:55 o'clock he declared an hours recess, during which time ha would study more deeply into the matter, to decide if Mrs. Clark, mar ried before 1877, can acquire any property or anynterest in any proper ty with her husband.
 Case Is Thrown Out.
 Court again ]convening at 1:15 o'clock Judge Futile announced his decision, which was that Lawyer Hart's motion for a non-suit was granted, therefore the case was thrown out of court. ,..
 Judge Tuttle's Decision.
 Tn arriving at his decision Judge Futile said he found that on their marriage MT. and Mrs. Clark had owned nothing but later accumulated more property. He said it was their understanding without any definite agreement, that they owned property jointly and Mrs. Clark had always re-. garded herself as joint owner But by her marriage under the laws of the time Mrs. Clark's right to acquire property was suspended. Judge Futile tlesaid he did not think that prop erty was suspended. Judge Tuttie said he did not think that property can be acquired by a woman married in 1866 so as to hold it against the vendee of the husband in good faith. He voiced the opinion that if the wife had share in the business the action is against her husband. The judge then remarked that he thinks the good faith of the bill of sale granted by Bernard Clark to Joseph, should be inquired into and on ac. count of the question as to its good faith he was reluctant to admit the motion for non-suit. Nevertheless, as the case had been presented to him, he could see his way clear to do noth- ing else. Attorney Hart's motion for a non-suit is granted" said Judge Futile.
 Another Suit Coming.
 Although Joseph Clark has been victorious in this case, the estate is still far from settled Administrator Schultz now plans to bring suit against Joseph Clark for the rent of the barns which he claims belong to the estate.
 Attorney Timothy F. O'Connell. Of New Haven, is chief counsel for tho defendant and associated with him is Attorney James D. Hart of the same city. For the plaintiff. Lawyers F. F. McDonough and G. W. Klett ap- pear.
 Clark Claims He is Right.
 Joseph Clark stated to a reporter