The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-06-13
IN COURTS OF LAW.
Jury Waived Session
Opens in This
City.
ONE CASE ON TRIAL ALL DAY.
June Sitting of Superior
Court Begins in
Fitchburg.
ONE CASE ON TRIAL ALL DAY.

The jury-waived session of the supe-
rior court came in yesterday morning
at 10 o'clock with Judge Hardy OF Bos-
ton on the bench. Assistant Clerk of
Courts w. w. Macomber reading the
docket. Deputy Sheriff w. w. Scott,
in the absence of Sheriff Chamberlain
announced the presence of the court,
and gave the opening proclamation in
the absence of Crier Charles Sibley, who
is attending court at Fitchburg.
The first case tried was that of Will
liam A. Terrier of Somerville VS.. Au-
gustine II. Terrier of Worcester. The
case was bill in equity to recover real
estate the transaction of which, it is
alleged was obtained by fraud. The
case, as it progressed grew interesting
and developed some startling facts of
unusual interest and sadness.
On one side was veteran of the
navy and his young wife, and on the
other was the son of the plaintiff. The
old man, who for 40 years was a gunner
in the United States navy is now a
wreck. mentally and physically, which
gave the unusual cOloring to the case at
issue.
The allegations in the bill of the COM
plant were that signatures to the deed
transferring the property, also the pa
perS giving up the executorShip of his
wife's will, were obtained by fraud
through threats on the part of the de-
PENDANT to have the plaintiff put in an
insane asylum and have his govern
ment pay cut off.
William A. Ferrier, the plaintiff, was
the first witness called. He was in fee
bic health and had to be assisted to
the stand by his wife. Upon the stand
he seemed. daZed and had a wild look
in his eyes, and broke frequently into
tears. His wife, who at first was seat
ed beside him, kept insisting upon help
ing the old man to tel. his story, and
after having been warned by the court
she was ordered out OF the room. The
old man, with the assistance of his
counsel, Thomas H. Sullivan, finally
told his story of his sons coming to-
his home in Brooklyn a year or two ago
TO get him to transfer the property to
him, also to resign as executor to his
wife's will. He denied having signed
the papers which were produced in
court, and upon examination by
Col. w. S. B. Hopkins, he said he was
not under the care of a guardian nor
was he insane. His wife took the stand
as the next witness and told of the
sons coming to Brooklyn and trying to
induce the old man TO sign the papers
which he did finally.
The case lasted throughout the whole
of yesterdays sitting and will be con-
tinued this morning.
Assistant Clerk of Courts Macomber
called the docket and the following
cases answered as ready for trial:
Joseph F. Boyden VS.. Security Asso-
citation; Frank B. Hall VS.. Fred L.
Nabb; John L. Truax VS.. Oliver NJ.
Wing; Levi X. Fuller ct al. VS.. William
Willard; William Allen ct al VS.. Boston
Paving Co.; H E. Brooks VS.. Augusta
L. Brooks; Susie E. Robert VS.. Victor
E Robert; Horace Roper VS.. Kittie F.
Roper; Augusta Moore VS.. William A.
Moore; Frank B. Hill VS.. Marie V, Hill;
Peter H. St. Germain VS.. Adelafne G.
st. German; George H. Allen VS.. Mary
Allen; Edwin Fowler VS.. Jennie e. Fow-
Ter; Arden NJ. Vickers vs.. Albert Wick
ers.
Settlements were effected in the fol-
lowing cases:
S3O7 Minnie J. Fogarty vs.. CITY Of
Worcester. +. B. Hall; Arthur P.
Rugg.
84S6. George Cowan ct all, VS.. Peter
Riley, P. Bonner; T. H. Sullivan
$685. Francis T, Giblin -. Albert
H. Morse and trustee. c. Merrill; 7.
H. Sullivan.
The case of the Fair Haven
Marble & Marbleized Slate company VS.
c. r. Stevens has been transferred to
the jury list.
The following cases have been con-
tinued to October:
21T2. District Attorney eX rel VS..
Swift ct al
1920 Ware National bank VS.. Hub
25S2. Copeland ct ali vs.. Reliable Tn
derwear company.
2605 Rice VS.. Reliable Underwear
company.
Sli7. Revere Rubber company VS..
Humber & Co.
1853. Winn VS.. Samuel l.. Merchant
ct ais.
32G5. Hood VS.. American Investors
company.
1247. Thomson vs. Worcester &
Suburban street railway company.
3z9S Brown VS.. Abbott.
1851. Cotter VS. Matthewson.
1892 Goodrich Co. VS.. Humber & Co.
of America.
1868. McGinn VS.. Plat ct al.
1902. Dart VS.. Davis.
35l7. Pugsley VS. Clark.
100 Riley VS.. Riley (divOrce).
9S6 Horton VS.. Horton (divorce).
The case of John Welch ct all VS..
David Welch was continued to the De-
cember sitting.
This case was passed: Carl Freezer
.ckson VS.. Clinton Wall Trunk Man
manufacturing Company and trustees.
The trial list for today will De: Cen
lin VS.. Doyle Cheney VS.. Town of
Athol Murdoch ct ali VS.. Clinton Co
operative bank, Boyden IS Security
association, Hall VS.. Babb. Truax VS.,
Wing. Fuller ct al vs.. Willard. Bos-
worth vs.. Platt ct ali, Fuller rs. Seaver,
Allen ct ali VS.. Boston Paving COM
pany, Brooks VS.. Mcdonnell. Forbes
q. Prob.) VS.. MeDermOtt, BTaney VS..
Newmark, Nash VS.. Jefts. Smith VS..