| Show IJiQ2IE 1 J Gfillil y t I > i4 li < p The Chnbers vs Emery J Suit Jlb i7 Gloeed 1 Last Night u 71 > t 5 t tf l > J > J rWtJ W m AKENUNDERADV1SEMENT C i V r i i ij I > 1 t < f a tJ JIEF LlSrICE 4LaIILTP JLL DId ThE ISUESSOON i J l t 5 t o Ji t 151tr t 1 f The Aggf1l eBt Occupied UI ot ics t jerdand v r o toucltiild at f < so LssiitN1ghiAttorney 1 L 1 lU < i < William Ofpenea Attorney DIck J < J = it i 1 rf 1t In < y John S Iarl sllnloeedIt Will Be Ap peshed5JLichIever 51111 i Wlns and 1lt Pr1ahih Go to thtelJijt 1Jc StatcsCsuiircmc Court llefore i thfc Siwt > 3 nc8Are K 1 Finally Settled t tfI T i c I j ice xarurnentp fit the big troininsr suit oL Robert Ci Cham Jer vs Susan B Eniefy administratrix of the estate of 4thelata Albion l pB Emery occupied the vhole of yesterday and i ito 930 oclock in the evening in Chief Justice Jus-tice M rrtts court ffhe testimony closed on Tuesday evening but by consent 3V V Rice was put on the stand for the plaintiff in rebuttal but was c asked onlyone question viz Does the Interest in the Silver King standing stand-ing in your name belong to you and E F Ferry Witness answered Y SIt S-It was arranged that Attorney P L Williams would open the argnments for the < plaintiff to be followed by Attorney At-torney Plckson for the defense and that Attorney John Marshall should close the ci + t for the plaintiff Each speaker was allowed three arid one half hours and In order to close the case yesterday Chief Justice Merritt agreed to hold an evening session of court The case was closed at Si30 p m Arguments Oven Mr Viliinins I in Jf s opening dwelt largely on the legal l aspect of the case and on the points in general on which the plaintiff relied particularly particular-ly with reference to the trust being granted orally which counsel held was Just as legal and binding and in every way as much a trust as if it had been reduced to writing After laying down the general propositions of law counsel coun-sel proceeded to review the evidence the vast preponderance of which went to establish the fact that the trust had been created and existed in a perfectly legal form The testimony of each of the witnesses was examined and sifted as to its bearing in that direction Fairly and impartially considered there could toe no doubt that jIr Emery considered himself the agent for Mr Chambers acting for him in holding the onehalf of the onefifth Interest and that being so Mr Chambers was already entitled to the dividends accruing ac-cruing therefrom Attornc > j Dlckiton Mr Dicksons address on behalf of Irs Emery was exceedingly close argumentative ar-gumentative and searching Some of the points made were discrepancies in the testimony given toy witnesses for the plaintiff accounted for in the main on the theory that the occurrences took place some five years ago and that necessarily the recollections of the parties would hot be very vivid and therefore not to be relied on with much confidence Counsel argued that the actions of Mr Umery during all the time from his p chase of the interest in-terest in the Mayflower until his death were such as to convince him that he was the sole owner of the onefifth interest in-terest and the action of Mr Chambers were such as might be expected from a person who had no interest in the properly The fact of the 1000 advanced ad-vanced to Emery being entered on Mr Chambers books in the loan account ac-count and the money paid to Chambers Cham-bers being also entered in the loan account was dwelt upon forcibly Counsel drew the deduction that Mr Emery either believed that he was the sole owner of the dividends or else he deliberately violated his trust if there was one for he spnt and appropriated ap-propriated to his own use the 117500 he received in dividends and at the time of his death all the money and property he had besides his shares in the Silver King was a little over 8000 The fact that Emery had paid 4000 from the earliest dividends received and that these payments were made in lump sums of 1000 and 3000 and not an equal division of the amount received in dividends was taken as proof that the monay advanced by Mr Chambers was in the nature of a loan and not of a trust The letter from Mr Chambers asking ask-ing Emery to let him have 20000 and promising to return the same was counsel said prima facie evidence that Emery did not owe him anything while if the trust had been in existence exist-ence Emery at that time owed Mr Ohambers 8000 On April 21 1892 Mr Chambers received 8000 from Emery which was entered on the book oi the former as a loan Attention was called cal-led to the fact that while Emery is alleged to have been indebted to Chambers in large sums derived from the Silver King Mr Chambers never asked Emery for any of such money and at the same time he was paying 8 per cent interest for any overdrafts the ftad from the bank Mr Chambers however waited until the man was dead before making any claims and now seeks to prove the validity of hIs claim by alleged statements made by Emery to others Such a course was unwise on the part of Mr Chambers and counsel argued that if Mr Chambers through neglect or otherwise had failed fail-ed to establish hIs claim he must take the consequences of his own neglect Counsel held that if claims were admitted ad-mitted on such testimony as was produced pro-duced in the case the estates of deceased de-ceased persons would be in great jeopardy je-opardy The statement made that Mr Cham hers had no confidence in Emery and I would not have loaned him 1 was I not in keeping with the fact that according ac-cording to his own showing he entrusted entrust-ed Emery with 4000 at the beginning and allowed him to retain something like 60000 received in dividends Which if the trust was a fact ought to have been turned over to Mr Chambers Emerys reputation as a spendthrift was not so bad but what E P Ferry lent him 4000 Counsel argued that the plaintiff had failed to establish his claim and should take nothing by his action at law Attorney Zllarsuull Closes Mr Marshall then made the closing argument for the plaintiff reviewing the arguments and theories advanced by Mr Dickson He made a strong point of the fact that when Mr Chambers Cham-bers received 42000 from the several partners In the Silver King although all the other partners individually received re-ceived Mr Chambers notes for their proportion Mr Emery had not received re-ceived any note for his portion for the reason that part of that belonged to Mr Chambers and Mr Emery already owed Mr Chambers a considerable sum on dividends previously collected It was a significant fact that Mr Emery Em-erY drew these notes himself and the fact of his not drawing one in Ills own favor was good evidence that he acknowledged that he was indebted to Mr Chambers on the trust and that in re eivlng that money Mr Chambers was only receiving what belonged to him Mr Emery himself had remarked at the time thai the amount could be applied on the settlement That statement state-ment ubQUt letting itgo on the settlement settle-ment showed thatHhere was a co interest existing between them Counsel Coun-sel then referred to the leal status of to J tr1t I 1t h the trust andjield that as Mr Emery did notfefciini adrersely < jftr Chttm bert < there tdpuld not be any poinp Paiseaas < to hfe statute of l limitations being applied iff the tffistfls bar from plaiittiff coHeotiogr So far as the proposition repeatedly advanced by Mr Dickson that if Mr Chambers wjas a loser ia ihJs matter liejhad no oue to blame but himself counsel repudiated that lVIrt Chambers was ta blame or should be jnedeHosuffer foe any imag mary neglect I 3 Mr Chambers had goad and sufficient i reasons for desiring that his connection wlfhr the Silver 11 King as an Downer I should be kept priyate CVIn Emery was I aware of this fact and therefore waS careful tovguard asfar as possible the secret Emery however had In the coUrse of business found it necessary to felrsome of hisjassociates such as David Keith Thomas Kearnsp > and others When the law suit of the Northland tvs the < May Flower wasp was-p Emery told Keith Kearns Rice and other parties that Mr Chambers Cham-bers owned half of his onefifth share and said that under the circumstances which these men could notforget that Mr Chamber Avas a good manto have interested with him especially when they had a law suit to light Emery told Kearns also that he had to divide his dividends Richard Mackintosh who had no possible interest in the matter mat-ter one way or another gave testimony testi-mony which went to show conclusively that Emery in his life time had considered con-sidered that onehalf his interest was held in trust for Mr Chambers The iatters attitude towards the minesiin question for years showed that he was an interested party Counsel argued that if oral testimony was sufficient to establish the existence and formation of a trust and there could be no question that it was it had been clearly established in this case It was a well understood thing among all the partners in the Silver King that Mr Chambers was financially interested with themto the extent of onehalf of the intereSt standing in the name of Emery The fact that the 4000 had been entered in Mr Chambers books on loan accounts was > no proof whatever I what-ever that it was a loan to Emery as it had been proved that the loan account was used by Mr Chambers In the same way to keep records of money advanced ad-vanced in many similar ways for ventures ven-tures in which Mr Chambers waS interested in-terested conclusion counsel saidthe money question in this case large as it waS was not the main issue Counsel on the other side had cast out the imputation impu-tation that this suit was an unjust attack at-tack on the estate of a dead man nail that the plaintiff had purposely waited i till Mr IJmerys mouth was closed by death before demanding a settlement so as to give the plaintiff every advantage to establish his claim Nothing could be further from the truth It was shown that it was a well understood thing between be-tween Mr Chambers and Mr Emery that they were equal partners in the transaction transac-tion and had Mr Emery lived Mr Chambers Cham-bers would have received his just rights without the interference of the courts Mr Chambers was not making any attack at-tack to rob the estate of the dead All he sought was his just and equitable share from this partnership and to obtain that and nothing more this suit was brought I Chief Justice Merritt said the suit was an important one involving large interests inter-ests He desired to examine it careful and study the testimony and therefore would take it under advisement and render his decision as early as possible probably before the convening of the supreme court on January 7 It is worthy of remark that this suit large as the interests involved are and the importance of it was conducted by counsel or both sides in a most gentlemanly gentle-manly manner and with great decorum Xo acrimonious debates were Indulged in and no urseemly accusations made Tie rulings of the court were submitted to with deference and uncomplainingly and altogether the case was conducted in away a-way worthy of the gentlemen engaged in it I There is little doubt that which ever side wins the case will be carried to the supreme court of the United States so that it will be a long time before the issues is-sues involved are finally settled |
