The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-01-14
LlNCOLN'S SCHOOL TAX.
Petition to Enjoin the District COL
lector from Collecting II.
SEVERAL DIVORCE PETITIONS
Heard Before Judge Wilbur. and Many Of
Them Granted = several Rescripts
Handed Down = petition for New
Trial Granted Miscellaneous Matt.rs

A bill was filed in the Supreme Court
late last evening by John 4. Goldsworthy
ana others OF the town of Lincoln. and
also petition for an injunction to issue
against Benjamin A. Reynolds. tax col.
lector of union school districts Nos. land
2. to restrain him from collecting thu
school tax Of those districts.
On the 25th of last April the voters Of
these districts voted school tax of fif-
teen cents on every 500 In these districts
and elected Benjamin A. Reynolds tax
collector for the same.
On May 10th the voters of the whole
town or Lincoln, In town meeting assem-
bled, voted to abolish the school districs
system, place the school affairs upder the
supervision OF the town government and
OF school COMMITTEES directly, and voted
tax OF eighty cents on the 500 for a
school and highway tax.
July 10th the trustees OF School Dis
tricts and 2. illegally, as claimed In tba
PHI, assessed school district in these
districts after the schools had passed
INTO the control OF the town. The bill
now claims that the said tax collector
has threatened to collect this tax and
asks that he may be enjoined from so
doing.
citation was issued returnable Mon.
uAy dlternOOn at O'Clock.
The following rescripts were. handed
down: Edward ID Pearce, ct. al, execu-
tors, VS.. James II. Rickard. et al. The
court Is OF the opinion that under the
will OF Mary H. Helme, the word "issue',
includes all of the descendants of Sarah
=. hickard, the life tenant, living at the
time of her decease, and hence that the
trust fund in question should be divided
per capita, between the children and
grand children of said Sarah G. Rickard-
then living.
Nathan p. Luther Vs. Andrew N. Med
bury, administrators. Award set aside,
and judgment for the defendant for costa
Henry Richardson vs. Charles w.
Bowen. executor. The court is of the
opinion that the monthly payments to be
made TO the complainant, as provided in
the will, do not abate with the other
legacies, but are to be paid in full.
The court is also of the opinion that tbe
respondent is not required to set apart a
sum for the funeral expenses of the com.
plaipant, directed to be paid by the will.
Hugh ORork, ct al, VS.. Francis
O'Rork. The court is of the opinion that
the Dill. In so far as it seess to charge the
real estate therein described with the ray-
ment OF the legacies given to the com
piainants by Hugh ORork. deceased, by
his last will aud testament, the paymenf
OF which Is by the will made charge on
such real estate, states case for relief:
there being nothing in the bill to show
that the charge on such real estate docs
not still exist.
As by the terms OF the beQuest the re-
spondent was not required to pay the
legacies until the expiration of six years.
aud then without interest, we see no
ground on which TO rest the prayer of the
bill Tor an account of the estate during
the six years. The demurrer to the bill
is overruled,
The case of Marius S. Daniels against
Herbert Almy ct al. was heard on the
respondents petition for a new trial.
Divorce Cases
The following petitions for divorce
were heard:
Patience Cummings VS.. George H
Cummings. This petition was heard on
depositions. the charges being desertion
aud non-support. The petition was
granted.
The petition of Henry F. Steere VS..
Ellen nj. Steere on the ground Of deser-
tion was heard in part
Mabel q. Cook VS.. Elbridge'S. Cook.
This case was heard on depositions, and
granted. The charges were non-support
and detention.
Elouise White VS.. Samuel 4. White.
charges desertion and non-support for
one year: testified to By witnesses.
Ida E. Tucker vs. William +. Tucker:
desertion, non-support ana
extreme cruelty; petition granted.
Mary h. Church VS.. Walter r. Church.
This case was further heard, the petit
tioner and respondent testifying. Upon
being asked directly IL charges of crimi-
lality perferred against him were true.
he respondent refused to answer. He
vas not compelled to criminate himself.
Both parties see TO desire the divorce.
Cora B. kneisley VS.. John L.. Kneisley.
Heard on depositions and granted.
Andrew Mcmahon vs.. Bridget McMa-
ION; charges. continued drunkenness;
granted.
Margaret Dunigan VS.. Joseph Duni-
,an; charge, continued drunkenness.
estified to by the petitioner and others;
.ranted.
William G.. Starkweather vs.. Mary
charge, gross misbehsvior
nd wickedness. testified to by the petit
ioner; granted.
Pardon 5. Vars VS.. Abby j. Vars:
barge, desertion; heard on dispositions
nd granted.
Flora B. Williams VS.. Hiram 8. Will
ams; heard