The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-09-15

The prolonged ana extensive ltiga-
tion over the vast estate left by Mil
lionaire William II. King of Newport,
Insane Is apparently ended by the de-
cision OF the appellate court In the case
OF William ID. King ct al VS.. Mrs. Eu-
genia A. w. Ross. The court decides
that all Mrs. Ross claims on the es-
tate ha~e been passed upon. and the
King heirs have a clear title SO far as
Mrs. Ross is concerned.
The latest phase OF the case was in
teresting. and Mrs. Ross has eminent
counsel incluolng ex-Judge Hemple OF
Washington. and the late Augustus III.
Garland, formerly L. s. Attorney Cen
eral. Judge Stiness writes the opinion
of the court and begins with the fol-
lowing terse statement OF its compli
Gated points:
This ss a bill for quieting title to
real estate in Newport. The complain
ants allege that they are the heirs 90
William III. King deceas.A and as suUf
owners OF the estate in fee simple: that
the respondent had conceived a scheme
TO secure the estate OF said William u.
King to herself by setting up the claim
that her uncle, Pelatiah w Gordon, had
assumed the name of said King and
falsely impersonated him; that Is was
said Gordon who died possessed OF
the property and that she as his heir.
was entitlcd 10 il. She has made four
motions i'm this case first for a bill OF
particulars second. for the production
OF marble bust OF William III. King;
third. for the production of the orig
ins.l papers i'm lunacy commission as
10 said King fourth for the produc-
uion Of cc.isain papers said TO belong to
the files OF a court In Mississippi.
The respondents brief says The ne
cessity for the granting OF these mo-
fions grow out of the fact that this is
essentially and above everything else "A
case OF Identity. involving a question az
TO VIII ch OF the persons called William
II. King was really the owner of the
property described In the coEaplainants'
bill, and the Information sought from
the compainants by these several mo-
fions ls necessary 20 inform the de-
fendant OF the exact claims set up by
the complainants in their bill.
THE complainants object TO the mo-
lions on the ground that the question
Of Identity has has been passed upon
and settled by this court. as set out i'm
the bill by the decree OF this court OF
September 2lst. 1897. on the appeal OF
this respondent from the decree of the
probate court OF Newport. BY the de-
cree recited 1t was adjudged that these
kin az waid William III. King. deceased.
and that the defendant was not and is
not the next of kin OF said deceased"
The respondents answer admits the
decree but says that she was not reard
on the appeal. because she had been
ad1udged In contempt Of court and was
Informed by the chief justice that she
should not be further heard on that ac-
court. and that he (the chief justice)
would proceed ex parte
This Is clearly erroneous. The mat
ter was before the full court and not |
before the chief justice. so that he |
could not proceed eX parte. AS the |
point now i'm issue Involves the record |
and actt tn OF the courts. a review of |
what WAS done September 20 and 9i 4
VIII show that the respondents right |
az next OF kin Of said William Hiking |
was conclusvely settled
Judge Stiness gives A clear and inter
esting record OF the hearings above re-
ferrei 70 and then says: The issue
was i'he same as that now raised the
appellant. having raised the issue by
her appeal was bound to ms.ntain II.
and having failed TO do SO me decree
on the appeal Is conclusive OF the ideu-
tity OF william VI. King. his next of
kin and then right OF administration
upon his estate IL IN therefore conclu-
give OF the gains set up by this re-
epondpnt on the four motions submit
ted IN this cause.
"Rule ~ resiudlcata as applicable 20
mis- case ds too familiar for discussion.
We have stated AZ length the proceed
in1s from the record with our own
knowledge of what took place. in order
that the application of the rule may ap-
pear. See also rescript i'm this appeal
fled June 2e 1898 There In identity of
subf~t matter of parties and of quality
~ right. This respondent had fun op-
rorfunffy 90 maintain her appeal by
showing that these c-Dmplainants were
not the next % kin ~ the decreased. and
y was rot only right but her duty 10 do
81
She was In no wav deprived % this
right. - - evident from the fact that
y rcrf1o1cmenf ~ fhe hearing was
rr7nfod her until tho next mOrnin0.
when her counsel ~H'd fhev would be
ready ~ procepd. A. she then ofrerel
NJ evidence 81 Identity Of deceased and
~ their kinship. the issue was decided
tpainet TIE apDeilanf now fhe respond
rr' eurh JUDGMENT against her in y
0rooatr proceeding u conclusive Of the