Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury [Connecticut]) 1900-1903, 1902-11-18
AN OLD CASE NOW
The Dime Savings Bank Against
Rev Paul McAlleney.
CONCERNS THE CASSIDY ESTATE

Dime Bank Officials Gave Their Testi-
mony During the Forenoon-Tfe
Rev Paul Il. McAlleney Was Also
Called to the Witness Stand This
Afternoon.
Judge Shuniway and jury resumed
business in the superior court to-day
Attorney NIcMahon appeared IN a
motion to cite in as co-defendent In the
suit Of the Cooperative Savings So
ciety against M. J.. Byrne executor,
Leroy, George and Walter SCHNEIDER.
Attorney Bronson opposed the motion.
but the court allowed it.
It was announced that the case of
Thomas H. Hayes VS. Attorney N. r.
Bronson should go over for assign
ment, and also the case Of Burritt VS.
Burritt, on account of illness.
The case of the Dime Savings bank
against Paul II. McAlleney OF Meriden
was then taken up Attorney Cole ap-
peared for the plaintiff and ATTORNEYS
Bronson and Danaher for the defend
ant. This case has been before the
court about seven years. The circum-
stances Of it are substantially and
briefly as follows:
Joseph Cassidy, who was well
known here, and has many heirs at
present here, died in Meriden about
twelve years ago. He was said to be
possessed of considerable OF this
worlds goods, but after his death his
estate was found to be somewhat of a
disappointment to those VINO knew
him, still 1t amounted to about 500. 900,
most OF 1t real estate. He died in Mer-
iden, as has been said, after a long i'll
ness and while visiting, or In the care
OF the Rev Paul McAlleney, pastor OF
the Catholic church In that place. He
appointed the clergyman his executor
and left him practically all of his es-
tate. Among the various pieces Of
real estate was lot In Meriden upon
which Mr. Cassidy has given the Dime
Savings bank Of this city a mortgage
for $1,S00. Mr. Cassidy Of course be-
lieved he owned this lot when he gave
the mortgage, and to confirm him in
this belief the town clerk of Meriden
gave the bank a certificate showing
that at the time in question 1t was his
property. But subsequently, ii do
yeloped that it was all a mistake and
serious one, too, that the old man
had no right whatsoever to it, Still
the mistake was not discovered until
the executor had for several years paid
tic ii1el est on the mortgage note.
After the discovery, efforts were
made to recover the sum given on the
mortgage, 81 800 This was the initial
step in long series of wrangles in the
high courts. Finally fore .os,rs rro-
ceedings were instituted and Judgment
given the plaintiff to recover -lic full
amount with the customary interest,
$2.191. The defendant refusing to
comply with the order Of the court. lie
way was at length clear.i to try the
case Oh its marits. The orig na ligircs
S1,S00 have grown to about $500.
Damages Of $4,000 is asked.
The witness for the plaintiff was
Theron Minor, bookkeeper in the
bank, Harry III. Peck and Otis s.
Northrop, officers Of the bank. Tie
defendant was on the stand at press
hour. The testimony was of a general
character. Father McAlIeney testl-
fled to having a conversation with Mr.
Peck about a loan in which Mr. Peck
said the bank should not have to be
put to any expense and that the mis-
take ought to be rectiied without go
ing to court. Witness replied to this
that he told Mr. Peck so far as lie was
concerned the bank would not lose
on account Of its transactions
with him. He also testified that he
did not recall receiving any claim
from the bank for 81 800 against the
estate of Joseph Cassidy. The case
may be finished tomorrow afternoon.