Norwich bulletin., 1916-08-23
cADY BUILDING COLLAPSE
 CAUSES MANY SUITS.
Owner Threatens Damage Action
 Against Huber & Chittsnden.


 The collapse of the Cady building in State street, New London, last June will probably result in a. lengthy series of suits against different parties in- volyed. Litigation has already been started as the result of the destruction of the building, and more will Un- doubtedly follow in the near future.
 It is likely that Huber & Chittenden, who conducted a dry goods store in the building. which they leased from the owner, Mrs. Mary L. Cady, of fendants in a suit brought by Mrs. Cady under the terms of the lease. Papers in the suit have not been actu- ally served, but it is understood that Mrs. Cady intends to bring such an action.
 The lease held by Huber & Chitten- den stipulated that the building was to be returned to the owner at the ex- piration of the lease in as good condt- tion as when it was taken over, except in case of fire or some other unpre- ventable casualty.
 The claim is said to be that the members of the firm were aware that the building was being weakened by the excavation for the Marsh building on the adjoining property and under the terms OF the lease, which sttpu- lated that the lessees were to make improvements, they should have had the walls braced and shored up, which would have prevented the catastrophe. Their neglect to do so makes them liable, is the claim of the owner of the building.
 Mrs. Tempy Johnson, who suffered the loss of a leg as the result of in juries sustained by the collapse of the building. will undoubtedly seek dam ages for her injuries. She has not brought suit as yet, and there is some question as to whom she will look for l damages.
 Joseph Bates, the jitneur who was caught under the debris while sit ting in his automobile which was injuries, may possibly bring suit for 1 damages.
 There is a possibility of a suit by ] D. s. Marsh who is putting up the 1 building next to the Cady site for de- i lay to the construction of his building l by reason of the collapse. It was sev- eraI weeks before the debris was l cleared out of the excavation for his l building which delayed the construc- l tiOn considerably.
 1 sions possibilities of numerous suits and court proceedings which will ex- l tend over a considerable period of 1 time.
 The first suit to be instituted as the l result of the collapse has been l brought by Peter F. Huber and Fred 1 erick W. Chittenden, comprising the
 firm of Huber & Chittenden. against i D. s. Marsh and H. R. Douglas, Inc, 1 the latter the contracting firm erect 1 ing the Marsh building. for 900 for loss of stock, loss of leasehold, loss of l business and removal of store and stock.
 The plaintiffs al1ege that the walls | of the Cady building and the adjoin- l ing building which was torn down by 1 Marsh P7I1TjCTnlIE oai2Nnn+ 1 being practically one wall and that | the building was torn down without | providing protection by way of brac- | ing up and snoring up the walls. The wall of the Cady building was per | mltted to remain standing without any | support, although the defendants knew 1 it's weakened and dangerous condi- 1 ton.
 1 It is also claimed that the defend 1 ant Douglas knew that the soil within
 a very short distance of the fOunda- ] tion of the Cady building was sandy and therefore treacherous and unsafe 1 in character, unable to withstand and | hold up the great weight of the ad- 1 joining building which caused the goiI l to shift and move.
 ] The plaintiffs aIlege that the de- i fendants were notified of the weaken 1 ed and dangerous condition of the wall | but that they took no precautions. l They claim negligence and careless
 ness on the part of the defendants, al-
 leging that the collapse could have
 been avoided by reasonable and pro-
 per care.
 The plaintiffs seek $8o,ooo damages for their stock; $4.00O for loss of leasehold as their lease did not expire
 until April 1. 1913: $5,000 for inter
 ruption and loss of business and $2,OOO for being forced to remove it's place of
 business and stock.
 Papers in the suit are returnable | before the superior court the first 1 Tuesday in September.