The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-12-19
AGAIN BEFORE COURT.
Case Of Mrs. Ross Against King
Heirs Considered Once More.
Action Was Delayed Until Mandate From
the U. S. Supreme Court Arrives.

Mrs. EUgenia Webster Ross case
against the King heirs of Newport was
again before the appellate court today.
This noted litigant was represented in
court by former Congressman John j.
Hempkill now of Washington ID. c.,
but who formerly represented one of
the congressional districts OF South
Carolina in Congress and attorney
Michael j. Callaghan OF Newport Will
liam G. Rocker appeared for the King
heirs.
There were "A number of motions all
ready for hearing and there was a bill
in equity down for hearing on Friday
next which il was expected might be
incidentally referred To but after a
brief discussion as To the mandate of
the Supreme Court OF the United States
i'm accordance with it's decision which
according to newspaper dispatches re-
fused To hear the appeal from the deci-
sion of the supreme court of this state
dismissing the appeal of Mrs. Ross
from the decision OF the probate court
OF Newport Mr.. Rocker wanted a de-
cree finally dismssing the appeal. That
is he wished the motion for leave to
enter a decree set down for hearing at
Newport. Mr.. Hempkill opposed and
assignment and introduced other mo-
tions.
These motions included a request for
a bill of particulars i'm regard TO what
had been done by the alleged heirs of
the late William IA. King; motion that
n bust of the late millionaire be pre-
sented for identification; motion that
all the papers in the King lunacy care
he produced by the King heirs: a mo-
tion that all the papers of Adam Cor
don case be produced.
Chief Justice Matteson could not see
what standing Mrs. Ross had in the
court.
Mr.. Hempkill said her claim was that
money of the King estate was being
wrongfully paid out. Chief Justice Mat
teson said Mrs. Ross had not shown
she had any interest in the dispotion of
the property
Mr.. Hempkill said that was the point
OF the controversy and there was no
mandate from the United States Su-
preme Court. Mr.. Rocker said he was
informed the rescript was of the same
nature as the court understood IL TO be.
Mr.. Hempkill said he was informed 10y
his associate former United States At
torney General Garland ana effort 10
reopen the matter before the Unitoa
states Supreme Court.
Mr.. Hempkill made a further point
that the motion To set time for entrance
of "A decree at Newport was not now
properly before the court because an
appeal was by section , OF chap. 24S of
the statutes i'm Newport county Co be I'm
order at the first day Of the court ses-
sion held 81 days from the determine
tion of the appeal unless within a. days
parties agreed I'm writing said appeal
should be certified to Providence and
there appeared 60 be- no such agree
ment I'm this case. Mr.. Rocker called
attention TO another provision of the
statute which stated that while the ap-
pellate division should meet at stated
periods at Newport it might meet there
at such other times as the court might
decide.
chief justice Mattsson said " was
the opinion of the court that no action
should be taken until the mandate ar
rived FROM Washington and unless the
rescript was different from wlat II was
believed TO be the cases so far as Mrs
Ross was concerned would be disposed
Of
Mr.. Rocker asked that the motion be
continued until Friday next when the
equity case in which Mrs Ross Is com
pisinsnt H. down for hearing The re-
quest was granted.