The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-02-26
Trouble Concerning
Widows bower.
Local jewelers. ASSign--Sued
by New York Parties.
Knotty Problem UnsOlved--Verdict
for Plaintiff in Slander Suit.

An interesting question came up in the
appellate division of the Supreme Court
as to the right of the Municipal Court of
this city to substituted one decree for
another. The case before the court was
that OF Clara l.. Hammond against Frank
j. Hammond.
The plaintiff is the widow Of William
G. Hammond and the Municipal Court
appointed commissioners to set off her
dover by metes and bounds. The COM
missioners afterward reported to the court
that 1t was Impossible TO carry out the de-
cree. Then the court appointed commits
sioners TO fix the value of the dover and
charge the same against the whole estate.
The heirs-at-law, who were represented
by &. NJ. Van Slyck, claimed that the
first decree being final one the court
could not enter another one as the mat
ter had been disposed of so far as the
Municipal Court was concerned.
Walter +. Angel, counsel for the
widow, argued that the hrst decree
having been found impossible to carry
out, the entrance OF the second decree was
perfectly proper one as otherwise a
blunder or mistake by the court could
not ne remedied. He did not think that
hold the contention of the heirs at law
that the second decree was void.
A hearing on the demurrer was had in
the same division OF the court in the case
of Robert L. Hargrave VS.. A. B. Pitkin
Manufacturing Company this forenoon.
The plaintiff brought suit to recover $500,
claimed to be due him by the defendant
as part consideration for the transfer OF
the right to manufacture certain improve
ments In the couplings of shafting. on
the issuance of letters patent No. 81. 397.
The defendants demurred on the ground
that the plaintiff did not transfer them
certain rights he claimed TO have done and
that certain rights he transferred to them
for the manufacture were in fact possessed
by other parties.
On the part of the plaintiff Mr.. j. Jer-
ONE Hahn claimed that the covenant sued
on was for the payment of 5000 when the
patent, whose number is given, was is
sued. Oscar l. Lapham for the defend
ants argued in support of the demurrer
that the plaintiff had not transferred the
patents that formed the basis of the
covenant to his clients and consequently
could not recover.
Charles p. Rollings and wife VS.. Louis
i. Barolet. Defendants petition for a
new trial submitted to the court on briefs.
The defendant is Pawtucket dentist and
a jury gave the plaintiff $3.50 in an action
brought against him for alleged unskiIled
work done for Mrs. Rollings. In his
petition for a new trial Barolet claims
that the verdict of the jury was against {
the evidence and also that the damages
were excessive.
Joseph Osfield, Jr., represented the
plaintiff, and McGuinness K Doran the de-
fendant.
COMMON PLEAS DIVISION
A suit of replevin brought by N. II.
signee of Herman Oeckel, a well-known
ieweler of this city, was tried efore
Judge Wilbur and jury this forenoon.
1t is claimed tha Oeckel made certain
false statements of his financial standing
to agents OF the jewelers. Association and
the Jewehrs' Board OF Trade, as well as to
agen of the plain ifs from 1892 until
his failure, in December, 1894. That as a
result OF these representations the plain
lifts sold him goods and that in 1895, af-
ter the assignment of Oeclkel, a replevin
suit was brought and goods alleged be-
long to the plaintiffs OF the value of S2y13
were found in the a signee's possession
Mr.. Oeckel was the first witness called
by Attorney $. :. Lapham, who repre-
sented the plaintiffs, and he admitted
SIGNING certain statements IS to his tnan-
cial condition during 1898 and 1894.
Nh. Huyler, agent of the plaintiff firm,
testified that his firm tegan trading with
Oeckel in 1889 or 1890. and the first edit
given to him was for 900 on 80 day s.
time. He claimed the jewelers. Associa-
tion and the jewelers. Board of Trade
got statements from retail callers as to
the standing of the latter and on these
sta ements whole alers relied. Goods had
been sold to Oeckel by the plaintiffs from
December, 1892, up to the time of his as
signment, on December 4, 1894. on the
faith of statements made by him TO the
associations named OF the value of 5000.
The amount Mr.. Huyles elaine was uue
on the after date was s4795. An agent of
the n. II. White Company had visited
MIR. Oeckel in 1894 and been informed that
the property owned by the local jeweler
was valued at S15, 0C0 above all cucumber
ances. Shortly after this the witness sit
ed Oeckel and obtained the same state
ment from he latter.
Mr.. Huyler was cross-examined hy Mr..
Fitch and admitted among other things
that Mr.. Oeckel had told him he was
going TO Bermuda for his health early in
1891.
Some real estate agents testified that
Mr.. Oeckle's home was not worth as
much es he valSed 1t in his statement
TO traders.
Assignee Fitch was called as a witness
for the plaintiff, by MIR. Lapham, but ne
gave little testimony OF material value to
the case.
The defence is that the statements made
to the jewelers. association TO the plain
tiffs were not intended to deceive and the
only thing the defendants assignee was
guilty OF was the Placing Of too high a
value on his property.
VERDICT IN A sLANDER CASE.
In the case OF Frances Coleman against
Msrgaret and James Hackett the jury
this afternoon brought i'm verdict in
favor Of the plaintiff and assessed dam
ages at 1916.
The amount sued for was $1,000 and the
plaintiff, Mrs Coleman, claimed the de-
fendant, Margaret Hackett, had slsndered
her character, using many vile terms in
presence OF a third party among the
milder denunciatory expressions INDUCED
I'm being those OF liar and thief.
The plaintiff formerly kept millinery
Establishment at the corner OF Bridgham
and Westminster streets, and hired the
shop from Mrs. Hackett.
Continued on Page 3