The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1907-05-24

Chandler would have an opportunity 10
reply 10 anything that Mr. Streeter might
say on this point.
Dewitt c. Howe OF Martin a Howe,
made the opening argument in opposition
10 the granting OF the petition.
Instead OF reading in full the affidavits
filed on his side he summarized them,
making from them the points that Mrs.
Eddys trustees have determined this
case In advance: that Mrs. Eddy's son,
George w. Glover. In taking his action
i'm her behalf as a next friend" was
moved by true consideration and real af-
fection for her: that trusts like the one
Mrs. Eddy recently made, have been
made by her in the past 10 meet certain
exigencies and that when these exigen-
cies disappeared the trusts disappeared,
also.
Replying TO Mr. Streeters argument OF
Thursday, Mr. Howe said that before the
hearing opened Mr.. Streeter was instruct
ed as 20 the narrowness OF the question at
isue at this time.
sut in spite OF those instructions from
the court. Mr. Streeter took up and dealt
with all possible questions except the one
directly al issue. arguing a demurrer and
motion 20 dismiss.
QUOTES AUTHORITIES.
Mr. Streeter quoted numerous authorl-
ties 10 show that suits instituted by next
friends could be taken out OF their hands
for cause. But what he needed 10 quote
and what he did not quote because he
could find them. was causes involving the
dismissal Of next friends, without cause.
Mr.. Streeter promised several times on
Thursday, said Mr.. Howe, 90 tell us how
the question OF Mrs Eddy's capacity IS
10 he determined: but he did not finally
do so. l tell you his real answer. though
he did not give IL. IL Is. let these trustees.
Baker and his satellites pass upon the
question: let them determine whether or
not Mrs. Eddy is competent.
Mr.. Howe cited large number OF ait
thorities bearing upon the question Of
next friends and guardians
Among the points brought out by Mr..
Howes authorities were that an action
brought by next friends stands until II -
rebutted. that next friend can be re-
moved for cause and in no other way:
that the question of capacity must be de-
termined as an issue OF the main case
! by legal procedure: that the court can
take jurisdiction for the benefit OF per-
sons rot found by judicial inquiry to- be
non-compos mentis; and that this general
| jurisdiction. as shown by wide outside
citations. obtains here In New Hampshire.
For this last purpose. Mr.. Howe made
numerous New Hampshire citations of
cases and authorities.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
From the Colonial period the courts
| or New Hampshire have possessed and
| have exercised complete equity juris-
diction The statute for the appoint
! ment OF n guardian does not negative
or anect In any way this Jurisdiction.
| II IL is n remedy for the same thing
II Is cumulative remedy and nothing
more.
, The question OF the benefit of this
trust deed to Mrs EDDY has NOT been
elucidated by Mr. Streeter, though
there are many questions relating TO
IL and bearing upon II.
AS matter OF fact, the giving OF
this trust deed after the suit OF Eddy
VS.. Frye had been begun was not only
OF no legal effect but highly improper
The defendants I'm Eddy VS.. Frye case
naturally would prefer to have the
trustees rather than the next friends
as plaintiffs. They would choose, OF
course, q sham battle in preference
TO a real one.