Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1918-04-18
MRS. SIMMONS
LOSES HER CASE
Judge Howe, in United States
Court, Declares That Plaintiff
in Suit against Old Bee Hive
Obtained Stock Certificate by
Dishonest Means

IN my decision as in this case" said Judge
Harland B. Howe Friday in United
States court in announcing his decision In
the suit Of Mrs. Leon Z. Simmons of New
York. formerly Mrs. N. E. Chamberlir
Of this city, against the Old Bee Hive
corporation to recover for the vaalue OF
100 shares Of stock in the corporation and
the deferred dividends. Judge Howe de.
cided in favor Of the Old Bee Hive, and
the stock certificate. which Mrs. Simmons
held, Is ordered to be placed in the GUS
tody of s. r. Moulton, to be held until II
IL delivered to the Old Bee Hive unless the
case should be reversed in the district
court Of appeals.
In announcing his decision, which fol-
lowed directly on the plea of w. B. c.
Etickney for the plaintiff, Judge Howe
reviewed the evidence. In a characteris-
tic manner he announced his decision
without listening to the pleas Of the de-
PENDANTS attorneys as he did not deem
them necessary.
II am firmly convinced" said Judge
Howe. that the testimony to the effect
that Mr.. Chamberlain gave these shares
of stock to the plaintiff as testified to
by the plaintiff and by Mrs. Rice. is will
fully false. OF this I have not the
slightest doubt. The possession of this
certificate Of stock was gained unbe-
known to Mr.. Chamberlin by some dis
honest means. Much evidence bearing
on the probability has been introduced
into this case and in considering this
can come to but this conclusion.
"A few things impressed me strongly
in arriving at these conclusions. I will
mention a few Of them. To mention
them all would take too much time. In
A. A..A nrAo
ment on the back Of the certificate. II
Mr.. Chamberlln had been SO anxious and
eager, as Mrs. Simmons testimony shows,
to give her the stock he would have
endorsed the certificate. II necessary.
Mrs. Chamberlin would have seen to 1t
that he did for she is a woman of some
experience in life. She doesn't need
a lawyer in the matter of ordinary busi-
ness transactions. Mr.. Chamberlin was
a man Of acute business ability and he
would have fortified her by some paper
or at least the endorsement II he had
been as eager to have her have the stock
as the testimony would show"
Judge Howe then took up other points
which would tend to dscredit the theory
of the plaintiffs attorneys. Mrs. Cham
berlin had kept quiet regarding the gift
OF the stock to her all through these
years because she has given her precious
word to Mr.. Chamberlin not to say any,
thing about It because Of making trouble
for him with the children. It is doubt
full II. when the hatred which was shown
to exist between the two during the
divorce trials is taken into account. Mrs.
Chamberlin could have held to her word.
Even II she had kept her word 1t would
have been doubtful II Mr.. Chamberlin
could have kept silent. At this trial
the testimony Of the plaintiff was to the
eject OF Mr.. Chamberlin's. abuse and
cruelty to her, and his testimony was
presented in an endeavor to show all the
good things which he had done. 1t Is
doubtful II Mr.. Chamberlin would have
neglected to mention the fact of present
Of $4,000 worth Of stock to her. Judge
Howe expressed his doubts II Mrs. Cham
berlin ever took the stock certificate over
to the rectory at the meeting which the
Rev. Charles G. Wilson arranged be-
tween Chamberlin and his wife in an
effort to effect a reconciliation. There
would have been no object in her doing
this.
MRS. SIMMONS ON THE STAND.
Previous to the plea Of Mr.. Stickney
In her behalf. Mrs. Simmons was on the
stand for two hours Friday morning.
Under cross-examination by Mr.. Brown
she told Of demanding $4,000 of Cham
berlin under a threat Of filing petition
for divorce on the grounds Of adultery,
II he did not pay her. She also admit
ted, under pressure, that she had had
somc people from New York watching her
husband and securing evidence for her
for presentation in court. She denied
that these were detectives. They were
friends of hers. She had not secured
the $4,000. but had taken $500 as a
balm for her feelings at this time.
.She was further questioned by Mr..
stickney as to just what the circumstances
were when Chamberlin gave her the stock
certificate. She said that one night when
he was disrobing. Chamberlin came In and
took the certificate from his coat pocket,
saying. Here. Jane. are 200 shares in
the Old Bee Hive and 1 want you to
have them. I hope you won't say any
thing about this to anybody as l don't
want the children to know about It..
They might make trouble
Mrs. Chamberlin said that she was
not much interested in the gift and she
told her husband that all she asked was
that ne act right. He had then said, II
appreciate your coming back to live with
mo not only because Of myself, but be-
cause Of the children" There were fur
ther statements by Mrs. Simmons cal
culated to show that she did not care for
the stock. 1t was a long time before
she really decided to take the certifi-
cate. but after a space of a few months,
owing to Chamberlins insistency, she
decided to accept it. He said on this
occasion, THAT stock is good and II
will always be good"
Whon o., cyt--
said that the evident sincerity of Cham
berlin had greatly impressed her. In
answer to Judge Howes question she
said that was one of the few occasions
whom she thought that Chamberlin was
really sincere. This sincerity finally
moved her to accept the 200 shares of
stock.
When Mrs. Simmons heard the decision
Of Judge Howe she showed no emotion
and retained her self possession, even
when she heard the opinion of the Uni
ted States judge as to the value of her
testimony and the manner in which he
believed she came into possession of the
certificate.
Mr.. Stickney left on the II o'clock train
Tor Rutland. and the other attorneys for
the plaintiff. M. l.. Powell and S. II. Moul-
ton. were undecided whether the case
would be taken to the court of appeals.
The lawyers for the defense were r. f..
Brown. v. A. Billiard. J. J. Enright and
C. p. Cowles.
The decree was entered for the de-
tendant because the court found that Mr..
Chamberlin did not make a gift Of stock
TO the plaintiff. The possession Of the
stock was wrongfully obtained. and
without the knowledge and consent Of
A8r. Chamberlin. The question as to