New Britain herald., 1929-10-11

ne?, al OrI y i#: li." ..s... .'-- Trust company, in t'" orH s~ mail. Ines ucl a ..l pgoce.ur- is rather q i"uIt ,ug to" ig| m 10 follow the s;.'a-.. .t ia oI.s.3 lr is entirety, 1t is laea Iy self-"ApaAa- tory.
 "Hcrald Publish Company
 "Now Britain, Cruaecr.rut
 "Attrution Of the Editor
 ''Ds&r Sir. In your issEe Of Thursday cv,uiny, October luth, you published the following i'll the first column CT rh- front r.---
 "'Tle suit Of inc Commercial Trust Co. a:ail-, Dr. r. Y. o'''.n- nell was today Giymls@eI from the doclot by Superior Court Ju'ga Brown. On 8 cenurr@r fled by At- tornay q org. V Brady, counsel for the surgeon
 "This is a utey',t. nrnt Of fact The suit faa not been d.s.-is-ed,
 Tn the second paragraph you stat the following.
 "tIn eubstarre. the opinion sets forth that Dr pCoUu.lI night have been ad.udrrd guilty ot fr"udUl"nt transfer only in tlc event that th" society refused 10 IoaE" payment It was shown that no such refusal had been trade and that arrangements have horn corrrlotod through which the mortgage demands will be satisfied
 "Each Of these statements is un-  true. In order to determine the falsity Of the first you only have 10 read the opinion. As 10 the second stater1rut, there is nothing in the record or elsewhere that indicates that such is the fact.
 "Furthcr on in the articl" which you publish you purport to quote the courts decision. The memo randum Of decision on the demur- Ter reads as follows;
 "'WhiIe the wording Of the guaranty, whereby the defendant expressly "rnarantees the payment Of the note. makes clear as the plaintiff contends. that this is an absolute as distinguished from a conditional guaranty (Beardsley vs. Hawes, et al, T Conn. 39, 4; 12 +. C. l.. 1oG4, 13), and that so, con- trary 10 what the defendant con- i tends, neither a prior proceeding against nor demand Of the princi- pal is essential to the plaintiffs cause of action. G2 E. C. L. 1083. 42)'
 You will note that the most i'm portant words, contrary to what the which come in the memoran- dunn before the words, defendant contends are omitted.
 Will you kindly retract these Tnisstatements of fact in as publi. a manner as that in which they were made?
 Yours truly,
 "DONALD GAFFNEY,
 Atty for Commercial Trust Co.
 IL appears from the above that the Herald was mistaken in it's re. port of the now famous Commerce.! Trust vs. Dr. O'CoEneu discussion Evidently the mistake was mad. through q misunderstanding Of leg procedure by q layman, The aTtiClr was printed in good faith as q chronicle of q news event of tho day. presented 10 Herald readers a such. We are willing and an%ious after the above explanation, 10 cor rect the wrong impression creat'd by the article and 10 offer the re fractions as re ucstnd in the above as q misstatcment Of fact wherev.f the responsibility and even though made in good faith is extremeE distasteful 10 q newspaper pubiishe. Editor Herald.
 The following statement waa made 10 the Herald today by Al torney George ". Brady;
 "The complaint drawn up by th. plaintiffs attorney did not hayr facts enough to stand up in co4r and as result VAS thrown out c. court by Judge Brown. In q d.. murrer it has always been tAe prN- ilege Of person to plead over, bu' the plaintiff w.r have 10 file q new allegation which will contain nor facts
 The plaintiff will have to alIe2u that the '. M. T. 4. &z E. saciet, had failed 10 pay tho d.b, when <. Was demanded Otaer"lse ta..r