Evening star., 1939-04-20
Court 10 Pass Also
On Stinson Trust
In Deciding Suit
Lawyers Make Final
Arguments in
AnnuIment Case

Justice Oscar r. Luhring revealed
In District Court today during final
arguments on the Stinson annul-
ment case that he planned In ruling
on that issue also to pass on the
much discussed trust OF $3.50, 900
which Mrs. Lola Crounse set up for
herself and Joseph Whitla Stinson
before their marriage.
There already is pending in a
separate suit petition to have this
trust adjudicated. After the Stin-
sons separated, the trustees asked
the court what they should do. Mrs.
Stinson's attorneys intervened with
petition to have the trust declared
invalid. Mr.. Stinson's counsel re-
piled with a request to have it re-
instated in place of the separation
agreement which gave the husband
$4,000 and to have him awarded
out of it $35,0 900 damages for alleged
defamation of character.
II intend to make a finding on
this trust to decide whether it is
valid" Justice Luhring said. II
don't see how I can dodge the re-
sponsibility of passing on it since 1t
has been raised as an issue in this
case
Summations Being Concluded.
Carroll L. Beedy, attorney for Mr..
6tinson, who was delivering his
closing argument, protested that
settlement of the trust was a sep
Arate case and had no place in the
present trial. The court did not
agree.
The highly complicated Stinson
case thus assumed another guise as
the lawyers were completing their
summations of evidence at the trial
in which Mrs. Stinson asked annul-
ment on the ground that she was
tricked into the marriage while
under the influence of sedatives.
The trust would not 60 to Mr..
Stinson until after Mrs. Stinson's
death. 1t gives her the use of
limited income from it during her
lifetime.
A second trust was set up by Mrs.
Stinson after the separation, ar
ranging for conservation of the rest
Of her 100000 estate.
Share Hinges on Suit Outcome.
If the annulment, which the hus-
band is contesting, is not granted
and the marriage stands, Mr.. Stin-
son could not be deprived of his
share of the estate if he survives
his wife.
Principals in the case were assailed
and defended in turn as counsel de-
uvered their concluding arguments.
Mrs. Stinson heard herself called,
variously, the victim of an ingenious
plot to get her fortune and a woman
not entitled to the slightest consid-
Grafton of the court.
Mr.. StinSon heard himself re-
9erred to as man who tricked
a rich widow into marriage and as
the victim of outrageously SANDER
Gus charges.
Offense Declared Condoned.
Starting his argument for the de-
tense yesterday afternoon, Mr.. Beedy
blamed a relative of Mrs. Stinson for
putting into her head the idea that
her longtime nurse and companion,
Miss Jessica Shoemaker, conspired
with Mr.. Stinson to bring about the
marriage. The attorney charged
the plaintiff with making "a supreme
effort to catch this man."
Even assuming she had been
under the influence of drugs when
she went through the marriage
ceremony at Bar Harbor, Me-, Sep
tember 81, 1887, Mr.. Beedy said,
she had "condoned' the ofense in a
legal sense. BY this he meant that
she had not complained of it at the
time, but had continued to live with
Mr.. Stinson until they separated
a month later and had not made the
charges until some time after that.
Alvin L. Newmyer, chief counsel
for Mrs. Stinson, made his opening
argument yesterday. He was due to
deliver the closing summation In
the case today, bringing a trial of
five weeks to an end.