Waterbury Democrat., 1901-04-18
ATTORNEY SUSAN DWELL.
Important Case Now Being Argued by
 Her in Bridgeport.


 Miss Susie O'Neill daughter of At terney John O'Neill, argued the Soper ys. Tyler case before the supreme court of errors in Bridgeport to-day. The judges knew yesterday that Miss O'Neill was to be counsel for MT. Ty-. Ter and many of their families formed part of the audience. Miss O'Neill was attired in becoming tailor made frock and Eton jacket and made u striking appearance. This is the first case in which a woman lawyer ever appeared in the Connecticut supreme court and, naturally, her presence aroused more than ordinary interest.
 The question presented was a nice one and called for much study and close reasoning powers. Last July, William Tyler of Bucks Hill, one of Waterbury's well known citizens, sent a telegram to Soper & Co, Boston, wholesale dealers in grain, for two carloads of oats. Soper replied by telegram saying that he had booked the order but that the price was too low. The same day they sent Mir. Ty Ter q letter informing him that they had sold him two carloads of oats to be shipped prompt by way of Fl. R., invoice and sight to come from them. The firm also stated that if any error should be found in the above to notify them.
 Everything appeared right to Tyler and he supposed the oats would come along in a few days, so he paid no further notice to the 1etter.Four days later two cars were loaded with oats at Chicago, consigned to Soper & Co. in Bridgeport The bill of landing therefor was sent to SoDer at Boston. It is always understood that whoever holds q bill of lading is entitled to have the %oods delivered to him upon the presentation Of the bills. On the this bill of landing was indorSes: Hold the oats at Albany" which meant that it should be detained there until further instructions. The cars reached Albany all right and remained there twenty-five days, or until July IT, the bill of landing remaining in the Boston office meantime.
 On July 15 Tyler wrote Soper at Boston informing him that he had been waiting for the oats so long. that he could not use them and that he had where and telling him to cancel the order. Ty1er's letter was sent from Waterbury on July 15. On July IT, two days later, Soper sent the bills of lading with sight draft to the Fourth National bank, this city, who demand ed the money for the oats and offered to deliver the bills of lading, but Tyler refusing to accept the bills of lading or pay the draft. The oats tt this time were probably in Albany; they actually reached here on July 27, ten days later, and Soper's agent then of fered to deliver them .o Tyler, hut he refused. Soper then sold the oats at auction at the best price he could get. The market price between the time of ordering the oats and the dates on which it was disposed of at auction continued to fall so that there was quite a serious loss for some one to bear. Soper claimed that Tyler should make up the deficit, but the Bucks Hill farmer could not see why he should pay anything for | loss which he considered he was in no way re- sponsible for. Soper took the case into the courts, and the question which Miss O'Neill had to do with to-day be- fore the supreme court judges in the Park city was whether her client was the under dog or not.