The evening times., 1898-08-11
FAY TEMPLEToN WINS.
Mr.. Justice Van Brunf vacates the
Attachment Against Her.

AsIuCnucut AS~SMSs
New York, Aug1. u--Fay Templeton
Osborn. the widow of Howell Osborn.
who is known to theatergoers as Fay
Templeton. gained a decided victory yes
terday from the appellate division of the
supreme court. through the efforts Of her
counsel, A. H. Hummel. by decision
rendered vacating the attachment which
was granted in May last against her
property. The court. Presiding Justice
Van Brunt writing the opinion. holds
that the attachment should never have
been granted.
The suit in which the attachment was
granted was brought by Edward E. Has
kel. under an assigned claim of Charles
+ and Edward E. Rice, theatrical man.
ayers, based upon an alleged breach of
contract The damages sued for were
SIS SIT. The actress made contract in
April 1896 TO assume the leading role in
Excelsior" under the management of
Edward Z. Rice and his brother Charles.
1t was a forty weeks engagement at a
salary of $50 weekly. She kept to her
contract until September. 1896. and dur
ing that time the play was realizing a
profit of 81, ,250 a week 1t had been book
ed to appear in different cities of the
United States and also in Canada. Miss
Templeton refused to go to Montreal
with the company and broke her con-
tract From that time on success did
not attend the production
The Messrs Rice contended the cost of
the produc fon of the play was $4,000.
and that because of her refusal 10 fulfill
her contract they lost So.6lI. They as
signed their claim TO Mr.. Haskell. who
employed numerous process-servers 10
hlI q = SlFHPadad
eyading them all, and whether she was
in London Paris or in her Amsterdam
Avenue fiat they could not definitely as
certain.
When they thought they had found her
and rang the bell Of the fiat she was sup
posed to occupy, they were told she could
not be seen. II was then that the court
was applied to. and an attachment
| against her property was granted by
judge Pryor.
Under the will Of her husband. Howell
Osborn, she was left a bequest of 800. 90.
and the first thing that was done with
the attachment was an attempt to place
IL on this fund. She. however. has not
received a dollar of this be0uest. and II
is doubtful If she ever will. on account
of the insufficiency Of the estate. and
therefore there was nothing to attach
| of this beQuest Judge Cohen was ap-
| he denied the request. and the case was
carried to the appellate division of the
supreme court.
Mr.. Hummel. in her behalf. argued that
| the afidavits upon which the attachment
was granted were entirely fnsuncient 70
| substantiate any charge that the actress
| intended 20 defraud her creditors He
contended that the claim for damages
| was absurd: that there was nothing to
| show that any damage had been sustain
| ed because she had broken her contract
| and that the damages were purely
speculative. The claim Of Sl5.Op to'
| moneys expended In bringing out tht
play. he insisted. could not be sustained
as against her.
| Judge Van Brunt. in vacating the at
| tachment, says the grounds upon whicf
| Il was granted were not supported D.
r,e facts. As to the claim involved IL
the action. he finds that a large portion
| of It is of a speculative character an'
too remote for judicial adjudication