The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-04-10
Many Important Cases
Were Heard Today.
Heirs SayEllen CosgrOve Was
Insane for Years.
Children Want Title Cleared--Divorce
Decree Entered.

"A very interesting case was neard this
afternoon in the appellate division and
the testimony of some Of the witnesses
proved very interesting. The case was
that of the heirs of Ellen Cosgrove
against John II. Merz, Albert Z. Johnson
and Franklin B. Ham, and the relief
sought consisted of a prayer that the
heirs be permitted to pay of certain
judgments obtained against the estate Of
the late Ellen Cosgrove and that their
title to certain property belonging to her
might be cleared OF the transfers made
in consequence OF the satisfaction OF these
judgments.
The ground on which relief Is asked Is
that the deceased was of unsound mind
when the judgments were obtained
against her, and that when her property
was sold under .them she had 5000 in
banks of the city.
The first judgment obtained against
the deceased, Miss Cosgrove, who, though
OF advanced age at the time of her
death, had never married, was obtained
by John q. Merz and Annie M. Merz,
his wife, and they recovered Si5 and
costs against her for breaking down a
fence in 1890. Ellen did not pay the
judgment and her property was levied
on and solo by Deputy Sheriff Johnson
and Mrs. Merz bought 1t in for S25, al
though Ii Is alleged 1t was taxed for
1900. Miss Cosgrove continued TO live in
the teDementhouse levied on Gano street,
until 1893,
recovered judgment against Ellen for
s!65 ana the property was sold by Deputy
sheriff Ham and eventually passed into
the hands of Mrs. Rorke, a sister of Mrs.
Msrz, who had Miss Cosgrove evicted,
whereupon the latter assaulted the Rorke
woman and was arrested for assault and
committed to the county jail. After Miss
Cosgrove had been there a few weeks she
was found to he hopelessly insane and
soon committed TO the State institutions
for the insane, where, after many months,
che died.
Helen +. Hines, niece OF Miss Cos
grove, testified to the latter acting as IL
crazy for long time before 1890, and said
her aunt could not understand anything
about the sale OF her property by order of
the court. She also said that her aunt
had 1855 in her pocket when arrested and
yet her bill for water for the house was
unpaid
Dr. Keene testified that Miss Cosgrove
was attended by him i'm 1893, and that
she bad for nany years been of unsound
mind; in fact ever since she was in the
Hutler Hospital, in 1862. her mind had
been growing weaker. Other witnesses
testified to the apparent poor mental con-
dition OF Miss Cosgrove.
wANy DEED SET ASIDE.
Bessie Conley and Mary +. Conley of
Warwick, by their next friend, William
Il. Healey, brought an action against
their unclies, James and John Conley to
have q certain cloud cn the title of their
property removed and the appellate court
today heard the matter.
40 yr,xrr ou .puAr
an interesting question of practice
came up in he appellate court this morn
ing on the appeal of Joseph Myron VS..
Union Railroad Co. from a decision of
Judge Rogers in the common pleas di-
vision of the Supreme Court denying him
permission to amend his declaration.
Myron is a carpenter by trade, and was
thrown of n car belonging TO the defend
ant company, and badly injured. He
signed a relesse of all demands:and causes
of action on the company on the payment
of 5000, and plaintiff claims there was a
further agreement on the part of the be-
fendant company to pay him SIS week
during his lifetime. The 500 was paid,
but aiterward the paying of the $15 was
stopped.
damages for his injuries, and the defend
ant set up the release signed by Myron.
The plaintiff fhereupon claimed that
there was another contract ON the part of
the defendant to pay him Sl5 snd the
appellate court, after hsaring, decided
that the terms of the written release
could not be varied. by oral testimony
and the case was sent back to the COM
mon pleas division.
Now the case came before the appel
late court today on q motion by j. j.
Hahn, counsel for relief, and he set forth
in his brief the fact that Judge Rogers
had denied him the right Of amending
his declaration as such a cause under
the statute gave him the right to appeal
to the court named.
Judge Tillinghast did not think the
remedy asked for by Mr.. Hahn, could be
given under the statute as the matter of
amending pleas was a matter OF dis
cretion with tie court.
Mr.. Hahn cited a section OF the general
laws providing that party aggrisved by
q decision of The common pleas division
might appeal 20 this court and claimed
this section gave him the right OF appeal,
but Judge Stiness thought that word
aggrieved must.mean legally aggrieved' and
that Mr.. Hahn's client could begin his
suit over again IL he could not with his
present pleas prosecute the same.
Mr.. Hahn then suggested a rear
gumcnt on the demurrer which YVES over
ruled bv the court, but.the court did not
deem IL necessary, as the decision OF the
court in this case was in keeping with
that of other decisions that a written re-
lease could not be Affected by oral testi-
mony. The chief justice denied Mr.