The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-04-09
HAY and APPLES.
Judge Utley Says They
We're Necessities in
Mellen's Case.

civil session of the central district
court Yesterday morning. The case
brought by Willard F. Pond against
Representative James H. Mellen was
tried before Judge Utley. The plaintiff
wishes to recover from Mr.. Mellen $4S.lO
which he claimed was owed him for
1910 pounds of hay at $40 per ton and
four barrels of apples at SO each. The
spectators looked for something in the
nature of a tilt between John H. Sulli-
van, counsel for the plaintiff, and Nh
Mellen. Lawyer Mclaughlin looked
after Mellen's interests, except when
that gentleman took a sudden interest
in the case and plunged deeply. On
these occasions he was warned to con-
fine himself strictly to the case. Say
ing things about Mr. Sullivan was not
allowed.
The defendant claimed that in 1897
he went into insolvency and was grant
ed a discharge October 5, 1897. This was
two years after the purchase of the
apples and hay, he claimed.
Fred H. Chamberlain was the first
witness called. A bill of $40 owed Mr.
Pond was shown in the insolvency
papers filed by Mr.. Mellen. This claim
was never proved by the plaintiff, The
main point raised in the proceedings
was as to whether apples and hay could
be considered "necSssaries" for man
occupying Mr.. Mellen's position. Judge
Utley settled the point by saying that
apples were regarded as common
article of food even by poor people, and
would therefore be considered as a
necessity.
The defendant took the stand and the
prosecution tried to show that a horse
and buggy We're necessary in order for
a man in Mr.. Mellen's position to main
tain his standing. Mr.. Sullivan wanted
to know what Mr.. Mellens income is
Lawyer Sullivan named 100000 as his
guess, but Mr.. Mellen put his hands II
his pockets and said that he never re-
ceived that sum. Two thousand was
mentioned as his probable income and
he was not sure whether it was more or
less.
At this point an objection was made
by the defense. Mr.. Sullivan made ex-
PLANTATION as to why he had asked the
questions. Mr.. Mellen then got into
the case in earnest. Mr.. Mellen want
ed to ask a question and addressed a
question for that privilege to Judge
Utley.
Through your counsel" ventured
Mr. Sullivan; but the court granted Mr..
Mellen permission, and he then asked:
rs a lawyer a member of the court?"
Mr. Mellen emphasized the word law
YER and shot glance toward Mr. Sui
livan.
He then tried to explain the reasons
why he considered Mr.. Sullivan's ques-
tions were tinged with insulting al
the case proceeded. Mr.. Mellen soon
began to say something about Lawyer
Sullivan's meanness, and he was quiet
ed. Mr. Mellen made a protest for the
third time, and Judge Utley said that
he would not allow advantage to be
taken of Mr.. Mellen.
Imagine any ones taking advantage
of Mellen" was Lawyer Sullivan's re-
tort.
In answer to questions. Mr. Mellen
said that the house in which he lived
was the property of his wife and was
bought with money he had given her.
He claimed that Mr.. Pond gave him the
apples, and that it was a frequent oc-
currence for Mr.. Pond to make him
some present until some time in 1885,
when they had a disagreement. Mr..
Melen told about the horse and buggy
he kept in 1895, but seldom used, and
attempted to show that the apples were
gift and that the horse and buggy
which occasioned the buying of hay,
could not be considered necessities.
Unless they We're he could not be held
for them, as they were covered in the
statement of insolvency in 1897.
Mr. Sullivan's summing up was a
revelation to the spectators and Mr.
Mellen. He began:
"Mellen has said that he lived at 119
Providence street, the truest thing, and
the only really true thing he has said
in the witness box" Mr.. Sullivan said
that the apples had been ruled to be
necessities. and "Mellen cannot, al
though he is a wriggler wriggle out Of
the hay" The horse was referred to
as one Mr.. Mellen had given away
That kind of a plug a necessity" ex-
claimed Mr.. Sullivan.
The court reserved judgment in the
case.
Two other cases We're tried-H. II.
& Co. VS.. Henry w. Pope
an action of contract to recover $1,000
due from the sale of a restaurant at
IS Park street. trial before Judge Ut
ley; Dr. Felix d. Fontaine VS.. Thomas
Delorme, to recover a bill of $40 for
services.