The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-02-20
AlOnzO N. Brighton No
Longer Restrained.
A Guardians Peculiar Action
After Courts Decision.
Plaintiffs Were FOrtunate--A Doctor
Suing for Services Rendered.

An interesting hearing was held today
on the petition of Alonzo M. Brighton of
Fall River to be discharged from the
restraint of his guardian, DIR. Charles A.
Hicks of the same city, ,and nurse named
Lewis NJ onners, before Chief Justice
Matteson and Justice Tillinghast.
Attorney John I. Blodgett appeared in
behalf of the petitioner and stated that
though the petitioner had always resided
in Fall River, in the county of Bristol, a
guardian had been appointed in the
county OF Middlesex and he doubted il
such an appointment was legal, and that
he could not see that such guardian, even
If legally appointed, could restrain the
petitioner in this State.
>. ;. Lapham, who represented the
guardian, stated that the removal of the
restraint on Brighton would work greatly
to his injury, but that as counsel he
would not oppose the petition bat simply
assist the court to get at the facts in The
case.
. Alonzo M. Brighton, the petitioner,
look the witness stand and testified he
was 81 years OF age and had always resid-
ed in Fall River and that he owned one
third interest in the hathaway Brighton
estate ia that cit That this estate coJ-
sisted of homestead, houses, barns and
several acres of land surrounding the
homestead. That on the 2eth of July,
1850, he was committed TO the sanitarium
of DIR. faine ct West Brighton for dipso-
mania and remained there until December
13, 1895, and went from there to Boston
and at,erward came to this city. On
| December 3, DIR. Charles A. Hicks OF Fall
River was appointed his guardian.
| In answer to question by his counsel
| witness said that he was told the expenses
| OF his nurse were $40 week.
| Mr.. IaDlam el1d that the eyrpuepg
| could be reduced TO "A week If mr.
| Brighton wanted them so reduced.
The witness said he was a voter in the
Ninth Ward of Fall River aud had served
az an election officer there. On cross ex-
animation he testified that his nurse had
been very abusive to him, swcaring at
him in the presence of ladies. Also that
he was going TO be confined in an insane
asylum somewhere. He admitted, how
ever, that his guardian had agreed to per-
NIT him to go to Maine for shooting
trip and that after that he was going West
| with his sister. He denied that he used
| Intoxicating liquor to excess. Said he
| playen whist where he boarded and went
TO church and to the theater
DIR. +. z. Cspron testified that he had
| known Brighton about two years and
| never saw anything to lead him TO be-
| lieve that Brighton was insane. In an
! swer to n question from Mr.. Iapham as
| to whether Brighton was not different
| from any one else the witness replied,
| "Yes, we all are.n
DIR. A. S. Powe testified he knew the
| petitioner and did not believe him in
| sane. Thomas Walsh, who boarded with
| petitioner since he came to Providence,
| and had known him in Fall River for 20
years, testified to the same effect.
| Mrs. Eddy, at whose house Brighton
| has been boarding for four weeks, testi-
| fled he did not show any evidence of in
| sanity and that he played whist with the
| mem Ders of her family nearly every even
| ing. She also said that Conners, the
| nurse, was constantly following him
| about and very harsh in his treatment.
| This closed the case for the petitioners
| and Mr.. Lapham said he would offer no
| evidence, but he would say that DIR.
| Hicks believed that the removal of
restraint from Mr.. Brighton would be a
| very disastrous thing.
Chief Justice Matteson said that as
| there was no evidence before the court
| that the petitioner was insane he would
| grant the petition and MIR. Blodgett was
| instructed to draw up an order in accord-
ance with the decision of the court.
After the hearing was concluded DR..
| Hicks, as guardian of Brighton, ordered
| him back to the state of Massachusetts,,
| but the latter refused to obey the order.
A DOCTOR SUES FOR HIS FEES
trlHl Oh Tue ue1Snuant dDDcdl from
| the decision of the district court in the
| case of Or. j. A. O'Keete against Michael
| III. Brady, awarding the plaintiff judg-
ment for s1sS and costs, took place before
| Judge Wilbur and Jury this morning.
| The plaintiff claims that the defendant.
who was on the 9th day OF August, 1892,
member of the firm OF Bottomley x
| Carpenter, called on him ss a physi-
| clan to render medical assistance TO his
| brother, who had teen injured while at
| work for the firm AS confirmation of
| this claim ii Is alleged that the defendant
| paid DIR. O'Keefe 800 on account. The
defendant denies even having asked tho
plaintiff to attend his brother, but that
the agreement was between the doctor
and the mother of the injured man and it
is also stated that the 800 was paid by
Mrs. Brady.
A. A. Mclaughlin was attorney for the
| plaintiff, and Bassett q Mitchell repre-
sented the defendant.
JURY FOUND FOR THE PLAtNTIFF.
John Reynolds suit against thomas
| Kelly, proprietor OF liquor saloon az
| the corner of Peck and Friendship streets
and J. p. Kelly, his son, and bartender,
came to an end this morning. Reynolds
claimed he was thrown ost OF the saloon
owned by Kelly On Sept. IL, 1895, aud IN
| jured so badly that he had TO spend 81
| days in the Rhode Island Hospital, and
he asked jury to give him $1,000 for the
| injuries received. 1he verdict Of the Jury
was that the defendant, Thomas Kelly,
| was i'm no way responsible for the affair.
but that j. Il. Kelly was guilty OF the
| wrongful actions alleged against him IN
the plaintiffs declaration and that j. y.
must pay Reynolds 200.
(Continued on Page T.