The New York herald., 1878-02-22
CULINARY CROSS PURPOSES.
A nrsrAunArEus SUES MRS. pAnAs STEVENS

A REsrAURATEuR SUES MRS. PAEAN STEVENS
VERDICT FOR $1,000.
Mrs. Marietta X Stevens. tho widow OF Paran
Stevens, II would Is determined to manage
her own Affairs aud resist real or iauced injuries
with all the machinery which the law has provided
tor both the oppressed aud opprcssor. Not long
since II wall be remembered that Mrs Stevens the
determined defendant Ia SUIT brought against hcr ~
the Superior Court to recover damages tor alleged
breach Of contract In lne building OF the Stevens
Apartment House In this SUIT she unsuccessful,
as she was also yesterday another action br ought
against her by Augustc anu Lena s. Mnard This
suit was tried yesterday before Judge Freedman,
holding Trai FERN. Part ., OF the Superior Court
THE DISTRACTION Policy.
The facts as developed on the trial aud In the exam
nation OF Mrs stevens yesterday are somewhat novel
appears, rs stated IN the complaint, thas on the I'D
Of May, 1875. The plaintiffs leased from Mrs Stevens
apartments 10 be used u restaurant and kitchen
the Stevens Apartment House, GU the OF Fifth
avenue aud nty-sevenlh sreet, tbe eass TO con-
unue Tor three years The essees hted and furnished
the place handsomely, expending IN such iuroshing
considerable sum oI money. Tho restaurant WAS
kept ny them on the French plan, as required BY
tho lease. Last February. they further say,
Mrs. Stevens began 10 opsruct them In their busi-
ness, using every endeavor TO cocrce them into
abandonment OF their lease She threatened
10 eject them, and discovering that her threats
futile sno tried, they aese, TO c'1oe them into sale
to her OF the restaurant and It's fixtures at what they
considered 10 be grossly inadequate price. This On
lerprise also to inglorous conclusion where
upon, as the plaintiffs iprther stale, she pursued her
obstructions TO an almost unbearable extent. She
cut OF The heat and water locked up al, the doors
leading to tho restaurant after thus running their
ne IN IN ID re for
these manifold and detailed injuries the plaintiffs
sought judicial Balm in The sum ol $4,000 danagcs
POOR rRovsNDkR AND had COOKING.
Tho story Of the pia'ntiils was haty denied by Mrs
Stevens, who stated that when Tue lease was made
there reservation contained therein giving 10
her tho rigut TO cancer the lease The plaintiffs
ailed 10 keep all ITS provisions One ot these pro-
rostauranl should be kept by them, and notice of
thirty days WAS 10 be gwen in case she should deter.
restaurant @ was n.hiiy Kept. was vas any anything ing
but nrst class, aud became SO object,onaoio
leave The notice was served; but, Notwithstanding
her expressed desire, the painns refused 10 go ana
she was oDged 10 resort 10 strugeat nouns Tor her
own protection She Iurher claims that she was in
jurcd 10 the extent Of 5000 by the piaints breach
OF Contract snd accordingly sets up couptcr claim
reply this answer denies the alleged service OF
the thlry da notice. aud sets up that any disagree.
cided by arbitration, which was not done.
WHAT MRS STEVENS SAYS.
On the trial ol me case yesterday Mrs. Stevens was
present ana testified as witness IN her behalf.
She was represented by Mr. John Berry, while the
plaintins were represented by Mr. John Langtree.
Inc Case Tor the paintls was closed, the evidence
beng somewhat IN cOrrobraion VI the facts gwen
sDove On the part OF thu defence several witnesses
were ex,mlnea relative to she culinary exccilency
OF tue restaurant and Its alleged fthy condition.
Finally Mrs. Stevens herself Was p CD The
PRACTICAL TEST
She sad before executing tho lease to 'this maui
| she won't down aud took ono or Two uuners ut his
place IN .hs ST Julien Hotel. which she found hrst
rate. She then concluded 10 him and 10
MIN tho bar ana restaurant The following sprIng and
winter tLero were great many Complaints from the
guests many of whom lott. She trieu 10 prevail upQn
nm 10 make things better, but her efforts thatv
rection were unavailing She then tried 10 buy him
out, but the effort equally unsuccessful, ana tue
iithy condition. Of the place rema,noa unchanged.
| Mr. Langrec--Are you mot hard 10 pieaser
| Mrs. Stevens--l have IA high standard.
| A CHARGE OF BLAcKMAlL.
The witness then went ON 10 tsstfy that Langtree,
tho plaintiffs counsel, Minaru called upon her ut
one time. On her Crosse nation by Mr. Langtree
the following somewhat spirited Interchange OF com.
piimcnts c0sued -
did you not say that II he (neaning Mnard) 10
law you would keep him In law for ten ysarsY
Mrs Stcvens-l never said IL; l warned him
against YOU because ths not the rst time you have
put men w sgainst me.
| MIR. Largrce-Did not tell you | was endeavoring
to bring about settlement anu wished you 10 sgrco
| upon the am0untf
Mrs stevens-You tried 10 black mail me and re.
| Mr. Lanatrec--Did not induce him to reduce his
price from 1000 TO 5000 Tor the purpose OF peace
aud harmOuyY
| Mrs. ssevens--I know nothing you have done Tor
peace only to mako all the trOuDe you could
| In gving this testimony Mrs. Stevens eyes giis-
tened aud her Voice somewhat trcmu lous but
her decisive manner aud scathing charges against Mr.
Langtree caused a great whispering among tho jury
| and the spectators
| Considerable testimony was taken through the dsy
and, when on the cr0ss-exanina,iOn OF Mr. Paul T..
| MotzcnDack, ono Of deIendant's witnesses by MIR.
Lapgtree, he addressed HIM Mr.. Mutlonoack,
| there WIS great merrment IN the room mo-
ton 10 dismiss the complaint denied, ana late III
the afternoon the jury brought IN verdict oi 200
| In favor oi the pluintIns.