Norwich bulletin., 1915-02-11
SECURE RETURN OF
 PROPERTY FROM DAUGHTER Mrs. Isabel s. Harris of Preston Brought Suit in Superior Court.

The case of Isabel $. Harris of Pres ton against Baye E. S. Benjamin of Norwich, a suit to set aside the con- veyance of real estate was tried in the superior court in New London Wednesday morning. The real estate in controversy is located in Norwich. There were two counts in the suit.
 In the first count the plaintiff al- leSes that she conveyed real estate in Norwich to the defendant, who is 1 her daughter and that it was to be kept in trust for her. the transfer be- ing without consideration on the part of the defendant. It was understood that the property was to be kept in trust by the defendant for tho plain tiff, but that the defendant has neg lected and refused to convey the property back to the plaintiff on her demand. The second claims that Eli- joll D. Harris, husband of the plain tiff conveyed property to the defend ant under the same conditions. The plaintiff seeks that the deeds
 be declared null and void, that the title be vested in the plaintiff, that the premises be conveyed to the plain tiff by the defendant besides claim ing S3,000 damages in each count. Mrs. Harris testified that in 1901 she transferred her property in Nor wicl1 to her daughter. who was the second of three daughters. Her desire to provide an education for her and her i'll health were her motives for conveying, the property to her daugfl- ter. Witness said that she was go- ing to work and that she wanted to feel that if anything happened to her daughter she would be provided for. The understanding was at the time. however, that the property was still to be hers if she lived. but that all though she has demanded her prop erty. il has been refused to her. She testified that this was all the property she possessed and that it was deeded to her by her father.
 Mrs Harris was a former New Lon doner and previous to her marriage to MT Harris was Mrs Benjamin, At the conclusion of Mrs. Harris testimony Attorneys c. W. Comstocl< for the plaintiff and Attorney c. Y. James for the defendant had a oon- sJlltation, after which, about 1 o'clock 1t was announced that the case had
 been settled. The basis of the set clement was the defendant conveying the property in question back to her mother.
 Rudd Case Started.
 At the afternoon session the case of William Rudd, alias William II. Cha pei o2 East Marion, L. l., which was also a contest over the conveyance of real estate, was started. The plaintiff alleges that on March f, 1901, he con veyed to the defendant a piece of prop erty in Preston to be held in trust for him, the title to remain in the de- fendant, but the ownersshio to remain with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has paid all the taxes on the property and has enjoyed the use and ownership and been in full control and possession. Besides asking s1.69o damages, the plaintiff seeks to have the deed to the defendant made null and void, the title vested in the plaintiff and the premises conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff
 The evidence was all presented and the arguments were made by Attor- neys C. ". Comstock and Arthur aH Brown. Judge Bennett took the pa- perS.