Extracted text

OCR Page 1 of 3
William D. Edwards Edwin F. Smith Edwards, Smith & Dawson Raymond. Dawson No.1. Exchange Place Andrew O.Wittrick Charles M. James Attorneys & Counsellors at Law Gersey City, N.J. (2035 Forrest S.m. Montgomorys 2036 2037 Edwards & Smith DEC 5 1932 December 2, 1932. United States Radium Corporation, 535 Pearl Street, Att: Mr. Lee New York, N.Y. Re: LaPorte vs. U.S. Radium Corporation Gentlemen: The above entitled action is now pending in the Federal Court. The plaintiff's attorney has written me, stating that he intends to move the case when reached. I have written to Mr. Markley, requesting that we have a conference in order that we may apply to the court for a date for the trial of the case so that we may be prepared to bring in our expert witnesses. In this case you will remember that plaintiff alleges that the deceased worked for your company from 1916 to 1918, leaving your company sometime in 1918. In the answer filed by us we pleaded the Statute of Limitations both as to the husband's action and as to the wife's action. Recently I forwarded you copy of opinion of the Court of Errors & Appeals in the case of Weinstein VS. Blanchard, wherein that court held that the Statute of Limitations begins to run from the invasion of the legal right of the plaintiff or in negligence cases from the time of the commission of the negligent act. In our case, therefore, under such decisions the Statute has run. The plaintiff in his reply to our answer did not set up fraud in the concealment of a cause of action as many of the other cases did. When this case comes on for trial, however, the plaintiff may move to amend his reply by setting up fraud, and although we may deny the fraud and interpose the defense of laches, etc., the court may permit an amendment, giving us time to answer the same and move the case over to the equity side of the court, and try out the question of the fraud of your company. of course we have no idea that the plaintiff can prove any such fraud. - -1- -