The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-03-08
Complaint Against Attorney
Smith Dismissed.
No Evidence OF Misconduct on The
Part OF The Lawyer Produced.
Dawley Brings $i0,0Oo Civil Action.
other Cases Decided.

The complaint against Attorney {.
Slocum Smith, which was heard yesterday
in the appellate division, was summary
dismissed by the court shortly after the
opening of the afternoon session. As was
expected the charges against
Mr.. Smith were not substantiated
and the entire proceedings proved
a fiasco of the most pronounced
sort. Whatever may been Mr.. Dawley's
sufferings, and however unjust the suits
brought against him may have been, there
was no evidence 10 show that Mr..
Smith was prompted by anything
more than profess ional zeal in the
prosecution of the cases against Dawley.
Mr.. Dawley is not inclined TO let the
matter drop, and today has brought
civil process against King and Milkman
for malicious prosecution. The writ is for
$4,000. and has already been placed in the
hands OF Sheriff Barrows. +. u. Owen re-
presents Dawley's interests III this
matter.
The general opinion among the attor-
neys who took a great interest in the pro-
ceedings is that the charges against MIR.
Smith were entirely unwarranted, and the
expressions OF sympathy for him are most
cordial.
The Appellate Court.
The following matters have been passed
rpon:
In the case OF Harris w. Brown, assignee,
VS.. Levi B. Place, the Appellate Court
has handed down an opinion to the effect
that the complainant makes case for re-
lief.
The petition of Edgar w. Chapman
against Blanche h. Chapman for divorce
has been denied, but the respondent will
be allowed separate maintenance by the
court.
In the suit OF Charlotte II. Dodge ct al
w. John w. Hogan ct al an opinion has
been handed down. The action is bill
TO ascertain the amounts 10 be allowed
the complainnnts for their support under
an alleged charge on certain real estate and
to enforce the payments of the amounts so
ascertained. Charlotte ID. Dodge, the
mother of the complainants, Charlotte X.
Dodge and Walter {. Dodge, died in Prov
idence OH Nov. IL, 1875, leaving last will
and testament, the third clause OF which
bequeathed her real estate to her husband,
Christopher Il. Dodge, and her children
Mary T.. Slocum, Charlotte II. Dodge,
Sarah A. Dodge, Walter c. Dodge and Ida
+. Burr. Two-thirds OF this property
was to go TO the husband and one-third
to the children. The two-thirds bequeathed
to Christopher q. Dodge was TO provide
. comfortable support for tho unmarried
daughters as long as they remained
single and also for Walter G. Dodge until
he should be able TO engage in a business
sufficient for his maintenance.
Christopher G.. Dodge died March 2S,
1883, aud since his decoase tho respondents
have acquired two parcels OF land former
Iy owned by the testatrix. Sarah III.
Dodge married soon after her
mothers death, but Charlotte has never
been married and is of unsound mind.
Since October, 1892, the respondents have
made no provisions for her support,
though holding the real estate originally
bequeathed TO Christopher G. Dodge.
Walter Dodge has never en-
gagged in a business from which |
he could derive comfortable |
support, being mentally and physically
weak. Both Charlotte ard Walter are in
a situation emitting them TO the benefit |
of the charge ii it is enforcible. The re-
spondcnls contend that 1t is not. |
The court. after reviewing the
claims carefully are OF the opinion that |
the charge is enforceable, and have fixed |
the sum 10 be allowed TO Charlotte at $500 |
" year, and the sum to be allowed TO |
Walter is sl0o a year. As, however, he |
by deed conveyed his mines sixtieths
Of the two parcels of land TO George w. |
Hubbard lac is estopped from claiming |
from the respondents holding the nine
sjxtieths that proportion OF the S400, SO |
tine amount 10 be paid him under the |
allowance is reduced TO $500.
a Common Pleas Action.
Before Mr. Justice Rogers today the |
suit of KenpethS. Mcneil against Thomas
Waterhouso for conversion of property
valued al $3.50 was tried. Page q Owen
for plaintiff; IL. A. McKenney for defen-
dant.
Calendar for March o.
tAppelate Court -Motions)
$3.50. Willard y. Tanner, receiver, vs..
Michael Murray ct al. Attorneys w. B.
Tanner for plaintiff; James Tillinghast,
City Solicitor, Il. w. Burbank and S. II. |
Hopkins for defendant.
1910 tinjunctionl. Fanny shein VS..
Herman Epstein ct al. Attorneys-stono
d Lovejoy for plaintiff.
1889. (prelim.nary injunction). Ed
ward Il. Carpenter vs.. Walter y. Bartlett,
ct al. Attorney s-Comstock & Gardner
for plaintiff; Il. III. Wildes for defendant.
1861. For assignment.
9910. (alloHaDce). Joseph l.. Hoffman
We. Kate Hoffman. Attorneys-Page a
Owen for plaintiff; McGuinness q Doran
for defendant.
1904 preliminary injunction). Thomas
Miller vs.. Robert McCardell. Attorney
ID. H.. Holland and j. NJ. Brennan for
PLAINTIFF; Bassett q Mitchell for de-
fendant.
3726 (pro confesso). William Bradford,
trustee, vs. Mary w. Burgess ct al. At
torneys-S. Norris for plaintiff; o. l.. Bos-
worth and J. Nj. Brennan for defendant.
1858 Ito frame issues). Elizabeth NJ.
Smith, executrix, VS.. Kelsey Dow ct al
Attorneys-Edwards q Angel for plain
tiff; Cooke q Angel for defendant.
1000 (allowance). Christine p. Bach vs..
George Bach. Attorney-Lee d Tilling-
hast for plaintiff.
1886. For assignment.
1861. (contempt). Matilda Giblin vs..
James 4. Giblin. Attorneys-M -McGuinness
d DoraD for plaintiff.