The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-03-09
Mr.. CAPWELL
GETS NONSUIT.
Mr.. Hazards Case Against Him
Comes TO a Sudden End.
DAMAGES LAID AT $500.
Plaintiff Loaned Money on Property on
Defendants Recommendation.
TITLE LATER PROVED DEFECTIVE
ty Testimony Of Plaintiff TO-DAY Il Did Not Appear
That He Engaged Mr. CapweI 10 Search
Title so NOnsuIi Vas Ordered.

Judge Douglas today granted a non.
suit in the case brought by Alonzo IL
Hazard against Roger L. Capweu. Mr.
Hazard alleged in his declaration thai
he hired Mr.. Capwell To examine the
ute IN loan made to James f.. Slo-
| cum and Carrie l.. Slocum on mort
! gage. The amount Of the loan was "a
be S26Oo, but only $500 was advanced.
ana Mr.. Hazard sought TO recover $500.
The declaration alleged that owing 10
the carlessness and unskiIfulness OF
Mr.. Capwell the plaintiff lost the
amount sued for. Neither Mr.. nor Mrs.
Slocum ever had il was alleged. any
title TO the land i'm the north part of
the city on which the money was
loaned
The non-suit was granted on the
ground that there was a variance be-
tween the declaration, which asserted
negligence, and the testimony.
Alonzo r.. Hazard testified he resided
IN Central Falls and had known Mr..
Capwell about n dozen years and had
had many business transactions with
him. Mr.. Capwell told him i'm 1897 that
he knew where $4,000 could be loaned. and
II would be all right Witness advanced
$500. sending a check, and about three
months afterwards he got a mortgage
deed which he supposed was all right.
and put 1t in his safe. Some time later
witness ascertained that the deed was
bogus deed as he termed IT, the par
ties who signed il having no title to
the land they pretended TO mortgage.
He then saw Mr.. Capwell and the latter
said If il was wrong he would make
thlngS right. Later when interest and
the return of the 5000 were demanded
MIR. Capwell told the witness he would
nave To look to Mr.. and Mrs Slocum
Tor the money Mr.. Hazard safd Mr..
Capwell had always looked after title
IN many cases where loans were made
On cross-examination witness said
he was manufacturer of fish lines and
he had loaned several sums of money
through Mr.. Campbell. Had never
paid Mr. Capwell any money in any Of
the cases as he supposed that gentle
man was paid by the parties who
sought to borrow money.
In redirect Mr.. Hazard said Mr.. Cap
well had been depended on TO see that
things were all right i'm regard to title. |
He never asked defendant specifically |
to examine the title i'm this case Wit |
that he never even went To look at the |
on which he loaned money. |
Tapwell said the investment was all |
light and that was sufficient
Counsel for the defendant said that |
Mr.. Slocum had an agreement with n |
nan named Osgood who owned a good
ieal of property i'm the north edge OF /
he city and as the house were put up
hr Slocum was to be given certain
OTIS. Slocum needed money to go on
With the houses and through Mr.. Can
we'll got a loan for Mr.. Hazard, an
Igreement being entered into with Mr..
Hazard as TO how the money was to
'e applied. IL was denied. counsel
aid. most particularly that Mr.. Cap
veil ever examined or was engaged to
Xamine the title Of the property.
Judge Douglas said that MIR. Uaz-
I'd aid not hire Mr. Capwell 20 examine
he title. according to Hazards own
estimony, and the present action did
ot seem To be the proper one. Mr..
'urbank asked for a non-suit and =.
(. Hopkins. counsel for Mr. Hazard
aid that the testimony was different
rom what he expected. The case was
hen disposed OF as above noted