, 1874-08-06
LOCAL MISCELLANY-

IdE bf4taS ROUSE TROUBLES
Judge Farwoll delivered decision ycstert1n
IN tho caso Of Gul!fyor against Wentworth on
others, involving tho question aa to which of u.
Two hotoa III thia city was Quilted to uao t4
nauic Of Briggs House." :. '4
u1ss. uu1lryEn,
ono Of tho comp1ainanty, aloRoa in her M, I'm,
Briggs, who built tho original "Drlraa rIouro ,
Oh tho oornor Of Raudolph street and 1riTt,
avenue, dled in 1869; tint Lie left her (Is uiHtcr,
1ho briggs House property, on condition .lat u,o
should maintain 1t sotoly us d lotol for twontv
venrs Attor hls dcath. In caBo Of destr,,otio,t,
u tno building by tlro, 1t wag to bo
tep'''lt wtthl'. reasonable tn1c, md II tho 1cr
ateo ana dosiBoo refused to keor tho terms at
.no "'ll lho property was to 60 10 other hcre
complainant lcnscd tho pre1niaos to Tucker md
nSi4"la Until loda. Tho building was DESTROYED
III tno great lire. shortly after tho fro Went
WORM u NoolWorth opened d hotel ou tt,p carnor
or Canal mud WoHt Madison strcots md oo,ot1
| IL tho ''Wost 8ido Eriggs Hc,!sc," c[alnin. to
nave purchased the interest Of Iuckor md l;s,.
yin Ill tho old Briggs 11ounc, Complainant nj.
cGc3 TINT 1t wss nsauo special condition or fin
ioaao tAat it should uot TO assigned; Tint Hl,o
luz not allowed any assignment, and therororo
t1nt wentworth d Noolworth. or teIr assieneou
sKlhner d Stone, could laYo no title to tl,o,
nnllo. S W eAo
J. y. Noes, ). g.. Icel. and A, J. uuntoon
icaaGa tho original eic. Ind procto.lod to oreet
uMuns ior alf'. unllsyer, Which They Lad mntlo
wo,'lt for hotof. Tilcso pnrtios. Loreyor m.
ltsed to ako lilo building wiieu tidc. antt icl,,
c9rts " flu,oon acecsdinYlytooli tic hotoI. Cam.
pnl'la,ts claim that tho tiaIno D.iggs Houson
i4tsgs had boon 10 successful In lis llatlc
that many wero attracted to tat hntci Sv tnn
Iollit;atiou, and TINT Wontwortll & Woolworfl viii
tc.y = stly ashElo anu Lesson colnplanantB' profits
question:. Au Injunction wa1 accoxjjtlriy nslaI ~,
70 prevent further uGo OF t1o 1,ufro !! yri,n.a
M1u'o, wLothor coupled with tho woIds NHa9st
Sluc" or not 'on'
maintained that thoy ,au bought tin intc,es. ~
fucker u Baldwin, tho former lcayncn. t1,at
tllcso loSheos Ind, by their management. f,nfnnT
U reputation for tho Briggs IIo1iBo whiui1 il,nv
,a,ma ''fs1oa 10 hold anu aluo to olnnloy tic
aowaver. aocldcu tint tho coinpfhinnnts vcro
S'S{le 4 Wanlpo,t to o hj INJUNCTION ashea entworih
thot ae a ed taxpn xyou o Y oil old III" hpto 4 beg
Ilonsa, tlelr collrEo would hayo been pronsr
snu rlE!lt, an1 thuy- might adyortiso ihst thcv
feEs inc briggs uoueo if it was owued by
'enrsd by their good management. o':rl.o' Ii"r
'aal tllht no objection was nlndo to tl1oir upiu:s
Alo maine after tho fro until Tic rcLujft},,
nE of tho old lotol Was not yalid
'efas0 eoro r ho daimaySS % resulted to oopainants
qMM lot bo hold ~ ul abnndonmons of Iigh,s. i
al.o owner had after tho ilro, gouo nvav. OF hu
hoWGd lo uld pot lntod to rabu,ld Tho tiolo 10
nso a'in 10 ahler"1ts 1oIr wsIe Induced to TO OK
lieu to tho natl'o. as tlo caso Btood, tiers- al
it' ,Iai' tho complainant wnp to be cons!derou M II
aitlod to t!1p na1no exclusively. III
s ~ - ooy' Ill behalf Of tho defendants, q