Worcester morning daily spy., 1898-01-15
MORE TROUBLE,
Editor Cristy Again in Court for
Contempt.
His Counsel Drags the Gazette Into the
sorape and Both Editors Summoned
to Appear Monday.

court Friday to show reason why he
should not be adjudged in contempt Of
court. At the opening of the superior
civil court, before Judge Bond, at $50
Friday morning, the case of Silas d.
Loring vs. the town of Holden, for the
assessment of damages to his land by
the abolition Of the "Tannery' crossing,
so-called, in March, 1896. was resumed.
Burton w. Potter, counsel for the plain
tiff. addressed the court. drawing the at
tention Of Judge Bond to an article with
reference to the case published in Fri
day mornings Telegram, the obnoxious
feature being a statement to the effect
that the town had offered Lor1ng a GER
tain sum at the time of taking, but he
demanded a certain much larger sum.
Both sums-the alleged offer and the
asking price-were given in the objec-
| tionable report.
| Mr.. Potter said that the statements
made in the article were not true and
were of nature which would prejudice
the jury. After Mr.. Potter had formally
called the courts attention to the mat
| ter, Judge Bond said that it was con-
trary to law to make such statements in
regard to suits on trial, and ordered that
| Editor Cristy be summoned to appear
| D6IOT6 Iu6 COuII DIT Lie OpclI1ilB VI IiC
afternoon session at 2.15, and show cause
why he should not be adjudged in con-
tempt The summons was placed in the
hands of Deputy Sheriff David H. Hay
ter and served upon Mr.. Cristy at IL
o'clock
At the opening Of the afternoon ses-
sion, Mr.. Cristy appeared with his coun-
sci, David Manning. Mr.. Manning ad-
dressing the court said that Mr.. Cristy
was not ready for hearing in the mat
ter, and asked that 1t be continued.
Judge Bond inquired if Mr.. Cristy was
| in the courtroom and Mr.. CTisty arose
| in response. Mr. Manning then said that
the reporter who wrote the article was
not present in the court room, and that
Mr.. Cristy had just returned from a trip
in the south, and knew nothing of the
article. He said that he wanted time to
secure witnesses, and stated that he had
been informed that the same article IN
question had appeared in the Gazette or
| the evening previous. The case was con-
| tinued without further discussion until
Monday afternoon at 445 o'clock.
| Later in the afternoon summons was
issued upon the Gazette Publishing
Company and at 5 o'clock this was
given to Deputy Sheriff David H. Hay
| ter to serve. Editor David H Rowland
| of the Gazette appeared at the court
1 house at that time, and the personal ser
| vice was made, he being summoned TO
| annear at the same time Monday AFTER
noon
There was a large gathering of law
vers and spectators at the opening OF
the afternoon session, ana many re-
mained until court adjourned at
| o'clock under the impression that the
cases were to be heard In the latter
part of the afternoon.
After the incident of Editor Cristy be-
ing summoned to appear in court LOT
| alleged contempt, the Loring-Holden
case was resumed. Evidence was COM
pleted and final arguments MADE, the
case being given to the first jury IN the
afternoon. The jury reached an agree
ment at about 4.3O o'clock, and the
sealed verdict will be read in court at
10 O'Clock, Monday morning. Burton
| w. Potter for the plaintiff; Thayer &
Cobb for the defendant.
The last case Of the day was that OF
Dominick Montagnioli VS.. Edward F.
Lathrop ct al. The case vas opened,
/ and evidence will be presented Monday
| Charles C. Milton, Herbert Parker for
the plaintiff; Frank P. Goulding, VIII
liam C. Mellish for the defendant.
2418 (On trian-Montagnio VS.. La
throp ct al. Milton, Parker; Goulding,
1557~stoll VS.. Palbitzd. Berger, Hag-
gerty & Kane; Clarke.
2O6s-Healy VS. Curtis. Shaughnessey,
Sullivan & O'Connell; j. A. Titus.
Goulding.
2O96-stevens VS.. southaridge Water
Supply Company. Haggerty & Kane;
SSo7MDonnelly VS. inhabitants of
Blackstone. Dodge &c Taft; f. N.
2S42-Brooks VS.. Jones. Williams &c
Williams; Fales.
2243-Brooks VS.. Jones. Williams &
Williams; Fales.
2259-Avery VS.. Prouty. Curtis; Hag-
gerty & Kane.
2S27-Burns VS.. Buckley. F. N.
Thayer; Dodge & Taft.
-Greenway VS.. Shea Williams &
Williams; Fales.
2SS3-McKenna VS. Shea. Williams &
Williams; Fales
25OS-Heald VS.. Trowbridge. Gould;
Clarke.
2545-Gunning vs. Mclaughlin. S. B.
Taft; f. n Thayer.
2632-L' Heureux ct al. VS.. Metropoli-
tan Life Insurance Company. Hagger-
ty & Kane, E. S. Hill; Goulding, Mel
lish.
29-Winn, exrx., VS.. Seaver, exrx. H.
E. Hill. Golding; Hopkins, Smith &
Hopkins.
2425-sexton VS.. inhabitants of Charl-
ton Sullivan & O'Connell; Charles A.
Merrill.
Continued to Jan. gath:
1480-Howry ct ali. vs. Harris. Harris,
C. M. Thayer; Dodge & Taft
JURY WAIVED SESSION.
In the Jury waived session of the SUI
perior court before Judge Wardwell,
Friday, the case Of Sarah e. Draper, by
her next friend, Michael W. Edwards,
VS.. William f. Draper, her husband. all
OF Milford, occupied the morning. The
next friend Of the plaintiff Is her SON
in-law, and the defendant her husband
The parties were married in 1885, when
Mrs. Draper was 72 and her husband So
In 1886, the plaintiff alleges that her
husband, through a third party, in
duced her, without any pecuniary con-
sideration, to give him deed Of the
property lot on which the house was
built and also the house. In April, 1897,
she alleges tn at he, through q third
party, procured from her a deed of all
the remaining property and no pecuni-
airy consideration was given. At this
time Michael w. Edwards filed bill in
equity to procure a cancellation of the
deed of 1897, alleging that it was pro-
cured through threats and undue IN
fiuence. The case was reported to
Henry l.. Parker, as master, who found
that Mrs. Draper was not strong, ply
sically or mentally, but was in a condi-
ton to do ordinary business. He also
found chat thei1usband had formed de-
finite purpose to gain the property, and
that he had been kind and attentive to
her and had won her over by threaten
ing to leave her If she did not make the
| conveyance 1t was ON the masters
report that the case was argued, the
court reserving decision. Kent &
Dewey for the plaintiff; Williams &
yxri tan,nss for the defendant