The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-03-07
HEARD IN COURT TODAY.
Case OF r. H. |. Goddard ct
al. VS.. City Heard.
WHO SHALL BE DEFENDANTS I?
Case OF State VS.. Rigoli and Ferari-
Dora Sullivan VS.. Worsted Mills
The Docket for March S-Other
Court Notes.

The case of II. III. /. Goddard ct al. VS..
the City OF Providence came up before the
appellate division OF the SupremeCourt on
demurrer. The defendants sub
mitted their targument in brief,
and the points were argued
by City Solicitor Colwell. He took
up the question of the propriety OF hav-
ing the Springfield road Incorporated into
the defense. The road, he said, will be
the sufferer in the event that
The he ,ond. city The doss v is mot aSa. esstss te
have the road come In and present its side
OF the case. IL is the province of a court
in equity TO take cognizance of all parties
TO suit. The road must have know
ledge of all facts set forth.
AS to the committee on city debt Mr..
Colwell could not see how it becomes
necessary party. The Mayor is not com
PEELED to guarantee the bonds even II the
city debt committee does not advise.
Rathbone Gardner, in behalf OF the
compleinants, put the question az TO
whether the city debt committee Is a
proper party to- the suit. The injunction
runs against all parties whose action is
necessary to endorsement. The
City Council in passing the ordinance
had committed the powers they possess TO
the Mayor and the city committee On
debt. The action OF the city debt com
miftee would be inyalidated IL the Mayor
did hot sign. Unless the city is alone de-
fendant all parties concerned must be
pr0ceeded against.
Judge Stiness asked II the Injunction
against the city "and its agents" does
not include the Mayor aud the commit
tee on city debt.
Judge Tillinghast asked IL the question
could not be more easily settled IL the
Springfield road were admitted as defend
ant. Mr.. Gardner replied that it would
IL the road msde allegations contrary to
those OF the city.
Judge stiness asked whether, IL the
road is party to the fact, II must not also
be party to the bill.
Mr.. Gardner replied that he had no
knowledge that the road is iparty to the
fact. ffA
Mr., TilIinghast argued for some time to
show that the injunction should not
run against municipal corporation.
Common Pleas Division.
Dora Sullivan, by her father, brought
suit suit t1day oy,a.nggs against the National ;,l
for 5000 damages for injuries re-
ceived by the breaking of belt in a
worsted spinning room. The case was
heard before Judge Rogers.
Before Judge Wilbur the case OF the
State Va. Dante Rigoli and Augusto Fer
Iorl IOr ROBBERY was nearu. III IL allegeu
that the defendants on the 10th of
June last took from one Giovanni
Caproni in this city S35 In money, and
promissory note for the same amount.
George j. West for the defense mo we'd
that the indictment be quashed be-
cause in making out the instru-
ment, the pleader neglected to cross out
the printed charge OF larceny, and as no
indictment for larceny was found by the
grand jury this paper was defective. The
court did not sustain the point and over
ruled the motion.
A New Assignee.
In the case OF III. 4. & j. N. Molter VS..
Francis Dodsworth, new assignee, Max
Maumann, has been appointed.
Docket for March q.
TAppellate Division.l
No cases assigned.
Common Pleas Division.1
6e41. Providence Hosiery Co. VS.. Good
year Rubber Boot and ShoeCo. Attor-
neys--A. A. Baker for plaintiff, Colwell
a. Barney for defendant.
6942. Augustus q. Brown, tr. vs. same.
Attorneys-A. A. Baker for plaintiff, Col
we'll q Barney for defendant.
6933. Same vs.. Same. Attorney A. A.
Baker for plaintiff, Colwell 4 Baker for
defendant.