Waterbury Democrat., 1901-11-12
VERDICT FOR s40O
Rendered Against Dr.. Callag-
 han in Court To-Day.
WAS CHARGED WITH LIBEL.

The Doctor Wrote a Letter Warning
 B. IT. Mattoon Against Julius Chotz-
 ranoff-Hence the Suit-The Byrnes
 Appeal from Probate Was Also
 Heard To-day.
 The suit of Julius ChotzianoH against F. J. Callaghan for $l ,ooo dahl- ages was heard by Judge George w. Wheeler and d jury ill the superlor court this forenon. This was hear ing ill damages for libel. Attorney Y. G. Root appeared for the plalntiH anu Richmond for the defendant Ihe plaintiff is carpenter and builder anu evidently had had some business re- lationS with the defendant Wnlch hau not a pleasant termination. for oh March ( last it was claimed III lha complaint that the defendant wrote Il letter to B. H. Mattoon. secretary anu treasurer of the Watertown Savings bank, warning him not to loan inoneN to the plaintiff. At that time tha plaintiff was engaged building num- Der of houses ill the northern section of the city and needed money. The defendant said i'll his letter tllat the plaintiff was borrowing or would try to borrow money from the bank through Loren k. Carter. 1t said that he represented to MT Carter That the work would cost twice the actual sum it would really cost and thns he would build the houses at the expense of the bank for one-half the sum bor- rowed for that purpose while he would pocket the other half. Several items of work were mentioned ill the com plaint which the defendant said would cost about S100, but the plaintiff told MT Carter they cost $200.
 MT Carter testified to having btsi- ness relations with the plaintiff and MT Mattoon testified that he knew the plaintiff and that his bank had loaned to him on various occasions sums ag- gregating $15,0O0. This was the case for the plaintiff There was no de- fense, except that Attorney Richmond stated that the letter was not written by his client. Attorney Root replied that inasmuch as the defendant had already defaulted it was an admissions that the letter was his Plaintir claimed $1 ,000 damages.
 The jury, after quarter of an hour deliberating, returned verdict for the plaintiff for $400. The case did not occupy half an hour in hearing
 Peter Byrne's appeal from probate was then taken up. This case has been hanging fire in the courts for some years, and is an echo of tue mar ried woman's law of 1877, when q wife could not legally make contracts. Peter Byrnes and his wife Julia lived on Hickory street. One day they de- cided to invest in some real estate, and the understanding was that the pur- chase should be held jointly in their names. The transaction was conduct- ed by Peter. with Scovill M. Bucking- ham. and through some misunder- standing the deed was made out in Peters name only. At that time the law prohibited husband or wife from making out a deed to each other. Therefore, in order that the property should be in both their names Peter. deeded it back to MT Buckingham witli the understanding that he should deed it back to Peter and his wife The misunderstanding that seemed to pre- vail at the outset still continued. for instead of deeding the property back ill the joint names of Peter and his wife, it was reconveyed only in the name of Mrs Brynes. This did not mend the situation any and before Mrs Brynes had made will she died Thus the property became a part of her es- tate. Peter valued the property at S1.200. He put q claim for that amount against his wife's estate but it was not allowed. He took an ap- peal and it is that which is now beforej the court. Attorneys O'Neill and Rus sell appear for Mir Byrnes and Kenne- dy and Root for their heirs, of whom there are nearly a dozen.