New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-02-15
IVES versus III A IA r D.

Involve the whole community and thus give nae 70
vo,iieal controversies in which tie bitterness Of
psrsonsl aDtpstby is added to tho ordinary aeri-
NOISY Of such sasrrels. The State Of Rhode Island
1as been FOX some time past, and It'll IS as''No
by an internal COL trovery Of this sort. Commene-
ig in q law suit, or, 10 be precise, an equity suit
between two private citizens, it has come ." IN
yolye not only the extent Of the powers OF me oa
pyeme Court Of Rhode Island, and the reasooa''e
exsrei,e Of those powers in the case 10 question:
but has also given rise to charges OF undue in lshce
.x.rc;.ed ON the Court resulting on the one nand
n Bh.l init and on the other IN proceedings
.ov n,naipr before a Special Committee Of the
..;.l.tnre 10 spnul and revoke the decision Of the
Cart and to turn over the plaintiff to seek bis
remedy anew at law and by jury trial.
The suit TO which we refer il that OF Robert II
Iyes w. Hazard and others, Of which the ofcls
wpoyt will be found in the fourth 'olu ne Of Amess
Rhode Island Reports, lately published The
statement Of facts, however, which 10 that report
yrcsdes the opinion of the Court, is warmly oo-
eeted to by the defendant and his friends, who BIT
tefly complain that the present Chief Justice who
II also reporter Of the Courts decisions was, dur
ing the tendency Of the suit, the plaintiff leading
counsel and, as they slege, has in his new charac-
Tea, failed TO diyest himself of the partiaies grow
ue out of bis former relations. 10 addition to this
official report the case has been further ventilated
IN three pamphlets. The first of these pamphlets,
under the title OF can Appeal TO the People OF Rhode
"I.!aDd, contained aviolent attack upon the deci'
ION, the Court the plaintiff bis witnesses and his
council by way Of answer t. this passionate
I" Appeal" the successful plaintiff printed, in an
ticipston Of its regular appearance in the Rhode
bland Reports the official report of the case, with
some preliminary statements and explanations OF
his own, including . general denial, as totally
and absolutely false, Of all charges made or
implied in that pamphlet, imputog to him ANY
" conduct in this transaction, or any OF its incl
"dents, at variance with honor or honesty, or
"scrupuloas regard for the rights OF other."
This publication has drawn out a reply by the au-
thor 81 the fret pamphlet, under the title oil
Letter TO Robert Ii. Ives" like its predecessor,
sharp and bitter and containing charges OF fAddca-
ion Of the record against the present Chef-Jus-
tee and reporter Of the Court upon which he hs'
brought an action for libel.
As the relative social position Of the plain
tjf and defendant unquestionsby has much
70 do with the public controversy which has
arown out Of their private dealings it is necessary
10 be little particular on that point. The plain
tifr is man of great wealth, business standing
and social influence, residing and doing busness in
Providence, but having also ,eat in Newport for
Summer residence. Adjoining this Summer resi-
dence of the plaintiff lay the Peckham Farm, 80
IL frac n fort g.
fepdsnt, poor man with large and dependent
family, including two grown cons who were at
once idiots and cnpples, had occupied that farm
~ tenant, it having upon 10 large house adapted
10 the purpose Of taking Sommer boarders, one OF
Gle means by which be got bis living; and it was
touching this farm that the difficulty arose.
Though no such matter was alleged in the plant
M's BILL il was however, warmly urged by his
eoaDsel, and is assumed A. fact proved 10 the
statement of the case given in the official report,
that the plaintiff originally employed the defendant
~ his agent to purchase this Peckhsm farm Tor
him. This assumption is alleged to have iniu-
snced the decision Of the Court; and il is also re-
led upon by the plaintiff in bis published state
pent. The only evidence upon this point put into
the Gaze was that Of the plaintiff e brother, since
deceased, and his principal witness, who testified
that he was present at Newport at conversation
between the parties as to the purchase of the Peck
ham farm, in which Hazard told Ives that he
thought the farm might be purchased for Sl2 600;
that Ives thereupon authorized him to offer
$4,000 for it; that Hazard sand he thought be
could buy the property cheaper than anybody ese,
but not for that amount, yet would try. How this
conversation originated the witness Old not state.
Ives says in his pamphlet that he went to Newport
to view the estate the representation OF Hazard
that it could be bought for S20 600; and, az if to
strength the idea that Hazard was his agent, he
refers to two other casesone before and one after
this-in which he employed Hazard to buy land for
him. Hazard, on his part, totally denies having
ever considered himself as acting as agent OF lves
though it would appear that Ives Lad occasionally
used him as convenience, but, as Hazard alleges,
without even paying him cent or offering to do
90; though to that matter It Is to be RENE inferred
that the mere honor of being used by rich man
IL often, in the opinion Of both parties, quite suf
fcient compensation for any services which poor
man may render to rich one. Asto the purchase.
oat Of which the lsw,ut grew, Hazard gives this
count Of it: His wife being very DESTROYS OF per-
pAnept residence and this Peckbam house beiag
very suitable place for Summer boarding house,
for which purpose they had occupied it, he
wished it for that purpose. The house, however,
IVES not to be had separately from the rest of the
estate, the whole being charged with the payment