Supreme Court Case; Servin vs. Dodge over Cryolite

SUPREME COURT.

The May term of the supreme court, Judge Soule on the bench, began at 9 o'clock on Tuesday, calling the docket and other preliminaries occupying the first hour or two. The Jurymen were not needed, as there were no cases for them to hear, but the following were present; E. T. Dart and Peter Hackett, of Adams; E. L. Tuller and H. W. Wright, of Barrington; F. S. Gross. of Lee; S. A. Turner of New Marlboro; E. B. Cady, C. Rand, and O. B. Titus of North Adams; J. C. Dodge, F. H. Hemming, E. N. Robbins and W. H. Stevens, of Pittsfield; Luther Winch, of Sheffield; L. Pepoon of Stockbridge; C. F. Town of Wllliamstown.

The celebrated Servin-Dodge case was postponed until the September term. It will be remembered that A. T. Servin, of Lenox, has a suit pending against Wm E. Dodge and C. C. Dodge, his son, both of New York, claiming 600,000 damages growing out of the purchase of the cryolite business by the Lenox Plate Glass Com­pany from the Messrs Dodge, of the Hot Cast Porcelain company. The case was tried a year ago and the jury disagreed. Previous to a new trial an interesting law point is to be argued and settled. Both defendants are non-residents of this coun­ty or state, and personal service of the papers were therefore necessary. The suit was begun in 1874, but it was not until some three years later that Mr. Dodge could be reached, but finally the papers were served upon him in Boston, where he was attending a meeting of the Young Men's Christian Association. He then had to come into court and answer, or be defaulted, and the trial, one of the most im­portant ever heard in this county was the result. C. C. Dodge was necessary as a witness in behalf of his father, and a writ of protection was issued for the purpose of allowing him to come to this state and testify. But the plaintiffs counsel knew he was to come and had received from the court the papers to serve upon him, as they had been upon the elder Dodge, and these papers were served as he sat in the court room. The defendant's counsel claim that the writ of protection saved him from such proceedings, but the de­fense replies that the protection only saved him from arrest, and further claim that, at the time of the service he did not protest or take any advantage of his protection, and for half an hour or more made no re­monstrance and therefore waived his right. This question must be disposed of before a new trial on the merits of the case can be had.