The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-07-23
CHASE WANTS
MONEY BACK
Gave $4,000 to His
Nephew as Trustee.
LATER DEMANDED RETURN
Case Growing Out Of Matter Entered
Settled 10 Court.
LATER DEMANDED RETURN
EFFORT FOR REMOVAL OF ENTRY

Attorneys Clarence A. Aldrich and G.
Slocum Smith applied TO the Appellate
Court a few days ago for the removal
of the docket entry i'm the case OF Henry
G. Chace VS.. Otis Chace. and there was
hearing On the petition today before
Chief Justice Matteson. The suit was
begun in March OF the present year
and no jury trial being claimed was
certified to the Appellate Division for
hearing as jury trial waived case.
Henry G. Chace claims that Otis Chace
"a nephew of his. got acquainted with
him shortly after he was appointed ad-
ministrator on his wife's estate, and
managed to get all the intestate's prop
erty. valued at $4,000, into his own
name. ON May an agreement was en-
tered in court, stating that the case
was settled by the parties. This agree
ment was signed by Henry G.. Chace,
by Otis Chace and by the latter's coun-
sci. w. b. Greenough, and Cooke e. An
gell. 1t was not signed by Messrs. AL
drich or Slocum, counsel for Henry CT
Chace.
Mr.. Aldrich pronounced the whole af-
fair as one Of the strongest cases of an
attempt of a relative TO get possession
of an old mans estate he had ever
heard Of since his admission 10 the bar.
Attention was also called by counsel
for plaintiff to the fact that Mr.. Chace
was an old man, not being intelligent,
and that there should be a trial OF the
case. 1T was stated that an application
for a guardian for the plaintiff had
been made to the Municipal Court, and
the same had been dismissed and an
appeal taken from the decision OF the
Municipal Court dismissing the petit
tion. and Louis l.. Angel Of counsel for
the defendant raised a question as to
whether pending the appeal the plain
tiff could be heard. Chief Justice Matt
teson decided that the plaintiff might
testify.
Henry C. Chase testified he was four
score years lacking five In age and that
he was appointed administrator on his
wife's estate in February OF the present
year. The amount OF money that his
wife had was stated as $40, 200, and Otia
Chace was, previous to plaintiffs ap-
pointment as administrator, as much a
stranger as some one In Ohio. Plaintiff
said he could not read but admitted
having made an agreement with parties
TO build monument for himself and
wife to cost $1100. and the monument
builders were the witnesses 10 the
agreement signed to settle the case, and
Otis got the money for the monument
builders. His getting of Ii proved a
trifie difficult as plaintiff insisted that
he wanted the $4,000 back that he
claimed Otis had taken. The plaintiff
further said that after Otis had prom
ised to see that all the money was re-
turned. he signed an agreement, In fact
two agreements, one of which was the
one for the docket entry sought to be
removed, and the other one to the effecn
that the income OF the estate was to
be paid to plaintiff during his life and
then go to the defendant. The latter
had said to plaintiff: 1--WE can settle
this together. / don't need my lawyer,
nor do you need your lawyer"
On cross-examination witness said he
had told one Of the marble men that he
left the money with Otis as trustee. and
admitted he had lived for a. time with
Otis. but denied that he had been asked
by Otis at Stanton & Farnum's to come
and live with him. Witness did not
be paid but he said that In converse
tion with Otis he had insisted that they
money should all be paid back.
Franklin Il. Owen, Esq, testified that
he represented the petitioner in an ap-
plication for the appointment of
guardian in the unicipal Court. In an
swer To a question by the court, Mr.
Owen said one of the petitioners was q
niece and the other IA creditor. Mr.
owen said he had seen the plaintiff |
about a dozen times. The first time the |
plaintiff came into his Office. he said |
Otis Chace had agreed to pay him, the |
his money at 1880 O'Clock the |
afternoon previous. and failed to do so. |
Then he began TO cry. and / at once |
'ormed the opinion that a man who |
would believe such a statement must |
De OF unsound mind"
on cross-examination Mr. owen was |
asked II he knew Otis Chace. and his |
'eply was in the negative. Then he |
vas asked why he considered the cir |
.umstance he had related about expect |
ng the money back led TO the idea on |
he plaintiffs unsoundness OF mind. |
Any man who would let another have |
20. 900 and then expect to get IL back /
Without the aid OF the law i would con- |
der of unsound mind" This reply |
aused general and loud laugh from
OF Mr.. ovens profession In
attendance.
Louis l.. Angel, counsel for the de-
endant. announced that he would In
roduce no testimony. He claimed that /
here was an agreement by which the
defendant was To- pay the plaintiff
money that the latter might need. and
le read a copy Of this agreement The
grdment for the docket entry. he said
,adWeen made by the parties. The
tory told by Otis to his. the attorneys
irm. was that both parties had decided
o dismiss counsel. and MIR. Angel was
lsked 10 enter the case in court Mr. |
Angell requested permission to ask G.
slocum Smith OF counsel for the plain
iff question, and MIR. Aldrich's asso-
late counsel consented TO the asking OF
he question. The question was IL MIR
smith had not prepared will before
he present proceedings were begun for
Mr.. Chace. the plaintiff. giving all the
rhe answer was yes.
u,t.. s.,... A.. .....t-. Il