OCR Text |
Show VOLUME 17, NUMBER 153 Can't Tell Cow From Steer' Composers Heirs Sue - llOPPA, CALIF. (ACCN) plaintiff, while driving -- Charging Defamation LOS ANGELES (ACCN) Claims were filed in Superior Court here last week on behalf of the children of deceased composer Rudolf Friml, asserting they were libeled by the publication of their fathers will. Theodore Wolfberg of New son and Wolfberg, representing the plaintiffs, has asked for over $1 million in general and punitive damages. The suit is against Charles Goldring, executor of the estate, asserting that he knowingly published defamatory matter when he filed Frimls will with the Los Angeles county clerk in .November, 1972. . The first cause of action was filed by Rude V. Frimel, also known as Rudolf Friml, Jr. In his statement Frimel quotes a codicil to his fathers will, in which the composer accused his son of trying to extort $10,000 from him through a third party. Friml also said of his son, He, too, seems not to care for me as a living person. Frimel said the statements made about him in the will were flase and had caused him general damages in excess of $50,000. He asked for $200,000 in punitive damages. The second cause of action was filed by Frimls daughter, Lucile Friml Mauvais. She made the same . claim as her brother, that statements in her fathers will were false and made with the knowledge that they would be published after his death and with the intention to injure the plaintiff in her reputation and occupation. . . She quoted a section of the codicil, written on May 26, 1971, in which her father said, During the past 10 years my daughter has not com-- 2 L.A. Judges The his The today 'two Los severely censured Angeles judges for misconduct connection with bail bonds. ir The high court censured foe wilful misconduct in office Los Angeles Superior Judge Leopoldo Sanchez and Los Angeles Municipal Court Judge Antonio E. Chavez. The high court adopted the recommendation of the commission on judicial qualifications which found that between December, 1959, and October, 1972, Sanchez regularly furnished to a bail bondsman orders for release of prisoners on bail which were blank except for the judge's signature. The bondsman filled in the orders and fixed bail without judicial authority, the IV cross-complai- . nt; CROSS-COMPLAIN- T, CROSS-COMPLAINAN- T Be Reopened -- - cross-defenda- and that said and carelessness General J. Stanley Pottinger, who negligence heads the civil rights division, to proximately contributed to and conduct the new inquiry based ona caused any damage of which authorized Assistant Attorney Complaint, . study Pottinger made of the fatal shooting by members of the Ohio National Guard on May 4, 1970. 30-da- . y Richardson said his .decision Pot-finge- rs plaintiff complains, if there was any. FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANAFAND SECOND SWER AND AS FIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES: I That all times referred to herein, plaintiffs vehicle was driven by one GERALD LEE WEAVER; that the said GERALD LEE WEAVER was nt than cumbersome ts cross-complaintan- steer, and that said automobile had far less intelligence than said steer; further, that said steer had two horns, neither of which, by viture of natures gift, made noise, and that said automobile had but one horn, which could make loud and raucous noises, but failed adequately to do so at the time and place referred to herein. III That at all times referred herein, the automobile of to cross-defenjda- PAUL WEAVER nt war That at all times referred to hereeach of them, in, so carelessly and negligently drove, operated, maintained, and cared for said automobile, which was dumber, than any dumb animal, as proximately to cause it to collide with plaintiffs steer, on State Route 96, a public street and highway in the Klamath-Trinit- y Judicial District, of County Humboldt, State of California, and thereby totally damage, destroy and render into a s, cross-defendant- -- rested solely on the need to exhaust every potential for acquiring facts The commission found that relating to this tragedy. We have Chavez had regularly furnished a concluded in the light of Mr. review of the file that there bail bondsman with orders for the release of prisoners on are some areas where an additional inquiry is desirable. bail. ed driven by GERALD LEE WEAVER with the consent and permission of the said crossdefendant owner. cross-defenda- nt cross-complai- nt pwnmtmrinn gald. pre-sign- careless and negligent in and about the matters complained of by plaintiff in the Complaint and that the carelessness and negligence of the said GERALD LEE WEAVER proximately contributed to and caused the damages and injuries of which plaintiff complains and said carelessness and negligence is imputed to plaintiff. automobile, collided with a bovine belonging to the defendant. The defendant asked the Iloppa municated with me nor inquired as Court to scuttle the plainJustice to my health needs or financial tiffs complaint. He further asked He also said his condition. for damages corresponding to the daughter had once sued him for value of the demised animal and $50,000 claiming that said sum was due to her for monies I had not went on to ask that the plaintiff be AND AS AND FOR A FURTHER, contributed to her as a child for her instructed on how to differentiate between a cow and a steer. SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANsupport. The answer and AF- THIRD AND SWER Friml indicated in the codicil that he had setUed with his daughter out appear in the current issue of FIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Judges, Marshals and Con- DEFENDANT ALLEGES: of court for 10 per cent of the airiount I she asked because he wished to be stables. For its comical value, it LEE That said GERALD done with it, not because there was is reprinted here: now BEN Comes defendant bad WEAVER either has judgment any validity to her claim. Mrs. Mauvais is asking for $50,000 in SNYDER and answering plaintiffs or .bad eyesight; if he takes every unverified complaint, admits, animal with horns for being a cow or general and $250,000 in punitive denies, and alleges as follows: a steer, his point of reference is damages. I singularly bad; that amongst the The third and fourth causes of 2, defenanimals known to have horns are Answering Paragraph action were filed by Lucille Friml, dant avers that the accident which is elk, mountain goats, antelope, water widow, and executrix of the estate of the subject of this action occurred on buffalo, rhinoceros, and unicorn. William F. Friml, the composers November A. That at the time of the accident 6, 1965, and not other son. November 6, 1966, as alleged by which is the subject of this action, She asked for $50,000 in general plaintiff; that said error in date is defendant GERALD LEE WEAVER damages and $200,000 in punitive serious, but not nearly as serious to either did not see defendant's steer, damages for the statements made the perpetuation of the bovine or having seen it, did not realize that about her deceased husband in his species as the error committed by said animal was capable of fathers will. Of his son William, the and his counsel an movement. elder Rudolf Friml had said, He plaintiff B. That at the time of the accident egregious error indeed in not only comes to me when he is in between a the difference in knowing question, the said GERALD LEE financial difficulty or needs cow and a steer; fortunately, WEAVER apparently did not know something. Mrs. William Friml is defendant, and his livestock, know the difference between a steer and a also asking for an additional $300,000 the difference. cow, or his eyesight was so seriously in general damages, because she II impaired that he was not able to see says, her husband died as a condefen4, the difference. In either event, his Answering Paragraph sequence of the statements made dant admits that he is owner of negligence is obvious. about him in his fathers will. livestock and admits that he is the C. Additionally, apparently the She said that as a direct con- owner of cows; were it not so, he said WEAVER does not know the sequence of reading his father's will, would not be the owner of the steer difference between open range and her husband became extremely which plaintiff wrongfully killed, as closed range and presumably should nervous, ill, upset and depressed, will be more fully set forth not be allowed to drive an and ks a further consequence hereinafter in the automobile in open range, judging thereof, died. . . defendant truly hopes that plaintiff by what he did to defendants steer. The elder Rudolf Friml had given and his counsel will come to D. That the said GERALD LEE his children $1,000 each and had recognize the difference between a WEAVER was driving with such made the allegedly defamatory cow and a steer at some point during force and violence that he turned a statements about them, he said, as the conduct of this cause. Defendant live and healthy steer into so much explanation for not giving them denies that any of his cows had Steak Tartare, and futher did not more money. anything whatever to do with any invite defendant to partake thereof, He willed the remainder of his damage to plaintiffs which was negligent indeed. estate to his wife, Kay I.jne Friml. alleged vehicle. AND AS AND FOR FURTHER, III SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AN5 and AFFOURTH AND 6, SWER Answering Paragraphs defendant denies that he was FIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND BY careless and negligent, or careless WAY OF or negligent, in any manner whatBEN SNYDER alleges as follows: soever, or at all. IV I Answering Paragraph 7, defenThat at all times referred to dant denies that plaintiff has been herein, he was the owner of a certain damaged in the sum of $358.67, steer, which was of commercial $140.00, $498.67, or any other sum or value to cross complaintant, aside sums. from is sentimental value as a AND AS FOR A FURTHER, WASHINGTON (UPI) Attorney. domestic animal; that said steer General Elliot L. Richardson last SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANwas of the reasonable value of AND week ordered a new inquiry intef SWER DEFENSE, $195.00 circumstances surrounding ths 197$ DEFENDANT ALLEGES: II I fatal shooting of four Kent State That at all times referred to That at all times herein menUniversity students, but apparently PAUL herein, ruled out an immediate federal tioned, plaintiff was himself WEAVER was the owner of a cercareless and negligent in and about tain Chevrolet automobile which grand jury investigation. Riduurdson said that he had the matters referred to in the weighed more than, and was more Censured by Kentstate High Court nqUjry t0 -SAN FRANCISCO (UPI) California Supreme Court MONDAY, AUGUST 13. 1973 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH bloody mess steer, to cross-complainan- cross-complainan- ts t's damage in the sum of $195.00. V does not know the true names or identities of crossdefendants named hereto as DOE ONE through DOE TEN, but alleges that they do not know any more about agriculture than does plaintiff or and that they were careless and negligent in and about the matters herein alleged, and prays leave to set forth said facts when the same Cross-complaina- nt cross-defendant- s, cross-complaina- nt are ascertained. VI and each of The the, violated Section 23112(b) of the Vehicle . Code of the State of California, which states that: It shall be unlawful to place, deposit or dump, or cause to be placed, deposited or dumped,. . . carcass of any dead animal. . . in or upon any public highway or road y including any portion of the thereof. cross-defendant- s, right-of-wa- VII That and each of them, are further careless and negligent in not understanding the difference between open range, as defined in the Agricultural Code of the State of California, and closed range. WHEREFORE, defendant and cross-defendant- s, BEN SNYDER prays that plaintiff take nothing by his Complaint, and that the same be dismissed hence without costs of suit, and that defendant have his costs of suit herein; and that cross- cross-complaina- nt complainant have and recover in judgment on his the sum of $195.00, and that crossdefendants be taught the difference between and amongst the various agriculture animals, which they apparently are accustomed to find-- , ing only upon their dinner plates. cross-complai- nt RICHARD M. KAPLAN, Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Complaina- nt - The WASHINGTON (UPI) American Bar Association was asked Monday to decide whether state bar associations should discipline President Nixon and some other lawyers connected with the Watergate scandal. The ABAs Assembly is scheduled to vote Wednesday on the resolution, asking state bar associations to hold hearings on whether the associations standard of ethics was violated by individual lawyers. Others mentioned in the resolution were John N. Mitchell, John W. Dean HI, John D. Ehrlichman, L Patrick Gray, Egil Krogh and Donald Segretti. . , |