The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-05-13
WAR RESUMED,
Battle Between the Molters and
Hodges Heirs on Again.
Deputy Sheriff Ham and the Manag of
Store Have Tilt.

The war between tho Molters and the
Hodges heirs was resumed this morning
The contest lasted but short time, Judge
Douglas of the Supreme Court putting
an end TO the trouble Deputy Sheriff
Ham led in the effort on tho part of the
Molters TO remove the wall that stands
on their land, as they claim.
The controversy is familiar one and
when Deputy Sheriff Ham began building
fence on the sidewalk in front of the
Hodges building crowd gathered around
even though IL was but "a little after
O'Clock. In putting up the fence, which
was about eight feet high and IL feet
long. the window of "A tenant In the
Hodges building was blocked up and TINS
made the manager of the store very angry
so he started TO destroy some of the work
that Contractor John l.. Sprague's men
had just finished. Then Deputy Sheriff
Ham, who has devoted great deal of
time 20 the matter Of seeing that the in
structions OF the counsel for the Molters
are carried out, threatened the manager OF
the store with the dire punishment that
follows any interference with the order OF
the Supreme Court. The store man
thought it wise TO desist and work was
resumed, but shortly after 8 o'clock came
the order from the court
Bassett a. Mitchell attorneys for the
Hodges heirs, had gono before Judge
Douglas and obtained an order recalling
the execution under which Deputy Sheriff
Ham was proceeding. Then the contrac-
tors Iuen were asked TO go away until
they We're sent for again.
The execution In the case was taken
out on the 25th OF November last and tho
tenants were notified that as it had been
decided that "A portion Of the west wall of
the building was partly ON tho land of the
Molters the wall might be taken down
a 4
High Sheriff Hunter G. White as To how
he should proceed and tho latter in turn
asked the Appellate Court This re-
quest OF the high sheriff fer instructions
was filed on the llth OF December and on
Dec H. counsel for the heirs of Job
Hodges asked the court 10 dismiss the
bill. This motion was denied and on
Jan. III. "a bill for "a preliminary injunc-
tion was filed by tho Hodges heirs to re-
strain the sheriff or MIR. liam from pro-
cecding under the execution i'm their
hands The opinion uf the court on this
matter was given Feb Il and tho com
plainants were given leave tO amend thCir
bill which was brought against the sheriff
10y making the AiOlters parties. The
sheriff was, In the mcauwhile cnioincd
from proceeding under the execution
The bill was mover amended ard was dis
missed by consent few days ago
In the opinion restraining The sheriff
the court said that when the bin was
amended the sheriff might proceed hy
sciro facias. Deputy Sheriff Ham held
that when the bill was dismissed be- stood
In the same position as before 1t was filed
and could proceed under the execution
so he got permit from tho city 20 build
fence on the sidewalk, as Is required ty
section 10 before "a wall can TO taken
down. The attorneys for the Hodges
heirs look upon the opinion OF the court
very differently they holding there was am
absolute and unqualified order given To
Deputy Sheriff Ham To do nothing fur
ther under the execution but To proceed
against the administrator.
AT l.5O o'clock this afternoon there was
n crowd In front of the building watch
ing workmen remove the fence a. another
halt had been called pending a settlement
OF the case.