The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-08-10
HANDYS IN COURT.
The Son Was Plaintiff and Father
Appeared a Witness.
Junior Secured Judgment But Some Un-
pleasant Remarks Were Made.

A couple of cases were tried in the
civil division of the Sixth district court
today in which some unpleasant things
of Daniel II. Handy and his son, Fred
erick, though the latter was plaintiff in
both cases The excuse for referring TO
the former was that Daniel was most
opportune witness for his son. Daniel
too has had much litigation and has
before been spoken of in a harsh man
ner. He surprised a number of attor-
neys one day in court by a statement
he made about his wealth when he
went bail for a man held on a serious
charge. Mr.. Handy. Sr., also figured in
quite "a notable effort to bring man
under indictment in this state back
from the west.
The first case tried was that of Fred
erick Handy against Harry l.. Boyce.
The SUIT was TO recover "a balance due
for money loaned on mortgage and the
price of some building stone. Mr.. Han
dy told his story about the money loan
ed and was corroborated by his father
TO the extent that money was passed
from his son to Boyce. Mr.. Handy. Sr.,
also remembered on one occasion
Boyce getting SO from him and paying
s. OF Vt to Frederick.
for stone. that the money alleged to
have been loaned him was in fact paid
him for work done and as to the mort
| gage that was in fact taken up by
| plaintiffs father Mr.. Boyce presented
| "A bill in setoff amounting TO $26. The
| mortgage was produced and il showed
1t had been taken up by Frederick
| Handy.
Judge Sweetland asked plaintiff II he
| wanted to charge 10 per cent. interest
| per month as the note called for and
| the attention OF the court was called
I TO the fact that the mortgage was
| taken up as an accommodation. His
| Honor gave Judgment for balance of
| SO borrowed money. for SO balance
| due on the mortgage wftn interest at
| 6 per cent and for IS II for stone. The
| bill OF the defendant was disregarded
| entirely.
The defendant in the second suit was
| Charles Briggs. Frederick Handy
claimed when Briggss wife died.
Briggs was short OF clothes and he
Handy purchased the necessary cloth
ing, including shoes. gloves and neck
tie for Briggs. Besides expending $l3
in this way Frederick claimed he
loaned Charles 81.
Briggs claim was that when the
clothes were bought Frederick owed
him $50 for work on a house on STAN
ford street. There was testimony intro
duced i'm contradiction uf this state
ment to show the Stanford house was
built by Daniel. the father OF Freder-
ick. Mr.. Briggs described the articles
he purchased at the time of his wife's
death and they did not include shoes.
He denied borrowing any money from
plaintiff.
MIR. Boyce. defendant in the other
case, and Mr.. Briggs said they had
heard the veracity of the Handys Sc
rf0usly questioned many times.
John +. Beagan. counsel for Briggs.
made some remarks about The Handys
i'm his closing argument that r.. X. Par
ker. the counsel for the Handys did
not like. The court did not think Mr.
Beagan overstepped the mark Mr..
Parker intimated il looked good deal
like effrontery for q man who was i'm
want OF clothes 10 artend his wife's fu-
neral to attack the financial ability and
moral character OF the plaintiff and his
witness. who were both engaged I'm
building houses. Mr.. Parker said the
many chairs I'm the court room could
have been easily filed with witnesses
who would swear TO the fine reputation
of the Handys.
Judge Sweetland gave decision for
the plaintiff for $50.
other cases disposed of were.
O'Gorman company vs. FREDERICK |
Handy. Settled by agreement of par |
ties
Albert I. Wilbur VS. Hattie Richard |
son. Discontinued by agreement OF |
parties.