OCR Text |
Show ECilO W THE. OPENING OF AVENUE In the district court this mornlnc, in Judge Harris' division, the case of John Smalley against J. Stanley Dee et al., was taken up for hearing. The : case has been on 'the calendar for a number of months. The suit is an aftermath of t,he Hudson avenue opening, Mr. Smnlley at the time being an occupant of the Stanley Dee property on Twenty-fifth street, through which tho avenue was opened. The budding was taken down and the plaintiff remov.cd his business busi-ness to a place farther west of the troot, interrupting the bu&lnesti of tho Jeweler. In his complaint Mr Smalley alleges that under tho lease which he held on tho Hudson avenue promises, Mr. Dee asreecf to protect and defend the terms of tho paper and that the plaintiff plain-tiff should not bo damaged in nnyway regarding the occupancj of tho place. He states that Mr. Deo did not do this when condemnation proceedings by the city were Instituted and that lie was compelled to employ an attorney at a cost of $50 to porlect him In his tennncy Al tho hearing today, the attorney for the plaintiff and for tho defendant agreed that if Mr Smalley was entitled enti-tled to recover, tho services rendered by Mr Smalley's attorney wore worth not more than $200. The defendant dOe? not deny that the services were rendered, but denies that the plaintiff can recover under the law |