New Britain herald., 1915-05-27
CLARK WINS CASE
 ONLECAl 1[CHN|CAlITY

THREATENED bY S(N, SAYS FATHER Now Famous Suit of E. w. Schultz,
 Administrator, Ends When Judge
 Futile Grants Motion for Non-suit
 in Superior Court.
 Joseph H. Clark has been victorious il. the lawsuit preferred against him by E. w. Schultz as administrator of the estate of his mother the late Bridget Clark After Attorneys Mo- Donough and Klett, representing the plaintiff, had rested their case in the superior court today, Attorney James D. Hart, representing the defendant asked that motion of non-suit be granted. After due consideration
 Judge Futile granted the motion on the legal ground that under the law which prevailed when MT. and Mrs. Clark were married it is impossible for the wife to acquire any personal property. Therefore Bernard Clark,
 when he gave the livery business to his son, acted within his rights and the bill of sale he gave included the entire business, as he was legally the sole owner.
 i The litigation was to try and re- cover half interest Tn Clark's livery Business, which Bernard Clark gave to Joseph and which, the administrator claimed, was half owned by the de- ceased wife The next step in this now famous Clark estate case will be the attempt to be made by the ad ministrator to compel Joseph Clark to pay rent for the barns on the estate, which his business occupies.
 Admits Bill of Sale.
 Court resumed sesslon this morning the aged father of the defendant on tlle stand for cross-examination. In his direct examination yesterday. the old mans testimony was replete with sensational disclosures concerning the actions of his son Joseph. Among other things the old man admitted .aivong his son a bill of sale for the livery business, but told the jury he had been forced to do it.
 Threatened With Inssnc Asylum.
 The old man told pitiful tale of, the memorable day on which he signed away the business he said had for so many years belonged to him self and his wife. He said that his son Joseph put him out of his barn on this day and then ordered him to sign the business over to him. When the old man demurred, ne claims. his son threatened him, saying "It will DC better for you if you do.',
 Asked what he meant by the re- mark that it would be better for him if he signed the paper, Joseph in- formed his father that 1T he didn't sign 1t he would have n;m committed tc the insane retreat at Middletown as crazy. Terrified by this threat and fearing that he would really be put in the crazy house if he did not comply with the order the old man says he signed the bill of sale.
 Always Recognized riis Wife.
 The old man also told the jury that | he and his wife had owned the livery | husiness together and that she owned | half He did not realize the serious ness of the act he was committing f when he signed the bill of sale for | his son, he said.
 Mrs. Watkins. daughter of Brid- ret and Bernard Clark, also testified, f aying that the livery business had Llways been owned jointly by her mother and father.
 J. M. Finnegan, the local livery nan, took the stand and testified to he previous value of the Clark livery business.
 When old MT. Clark took the stand his morning, Attorney Hart at once .egan to cross examine him. He aid he went into the livery business bout ten years after he was married nd his wife had always helped him. to the old bills, the witness aid that they were sometimes made | ut payable to himself alone, and at ther times payable to ''B. and E. lark" He told the, court that he 1 ooms with his daughter Elizabeth nd that his son John lives in the anne block. He denied to Attorney Iart that he had discussed the case yith any of his children. When he lrned the business over to Joseph lark he had been in the livery trade E pr thirty-five or forty years. MT. ] lark said he does not know how old z e is, but he thinks he is about !, ayenty years of age. Attorney Hart ltroduced bill made all to B. T lark, to show that the business 9 as owned by the husband.
 Lawyers Have Clash. When Attorney Hart asked MT. n lark some unnecessary questions, bout his business, Attorney Me- c enough objected. The New Haven . .wyer insisted, saying that the witt . ess' memory was faulty. Judge Tut o e spoke sharply at this statement n tying. you have no right to say his . ernory is faulty If hasn't baa,, V