The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-11-17
LATEST
HEARD IN COURT.
Many Matters Before the Appellate
Division Today.

The following matters were heard be-
fore the appellate division today, Dir.
Justice Stlness preslding:
Macauloy Brothers vs.Patrick Tierney et
ais. This was heard on two motions OF
the plaintiff, one to settle the issues and
one TO hear the case on oral testimony.
The case was passed for one week.
Pierre Dansereau vs. A. Hormesdas Gil
rouard. On consent OF counsel decree
granting a preliminary injunction was
entered restraining The defendant from
carrying on the business OF an under
taker within 10-miles radius Of Central
Falls.
Joseph II. Tanning vs.. Celia flaming.
This IL a petition for divorce in which the
respondent prays for counsel fees and
maintenance, also for "a bill OF
particulars. The respondent is blind and
utterly helpless. The complainant said
he was not working and had nota cent OF
income. An order was granted by the
court OF S6 a week and $50 for counsel fees.
Conant Thread Company VS.. Moses
Brown et al. This is a petition OF pre-
lminary Injunction, based on a bill filed
by the Thread Company to restrain the
defendants rom obstructing the wesJ end
of Winter street in Pswtucket and from
changing its grade.
The fac1s in the case are that
both plaintiff aud defendants had
common right OF way on West
street. The plaintiff graded and macsd-
amized this street, lowering the natural
surface OF the street at one point about
two feet Here the defendants tore up
the macadam and II ~ TO prevent any
further action of this sort that the peti-
tion is made. The defendants claim that
there is another way in which the plain
tiff can get from their property and that
the plaintiff Is confessedly wrong doer
int disturbing the grade OF the street.
The matter was held for advisement by
the court.
Louis n. Williams Va. Albert NJ. VIII
lans. This is a divorce suit in which the
petitioner asks for maintenance pending
divorce proceedings. decree was en-
tered allowing tie petitioner Sl3 week
and go for counsel fees.
William NJ. Grath vs.. Mary M. Grath
This is n divorce petition In which by
consent OF counsel the respondent was
allowed the sum OF S3 per week for the
support OF herself and minor child and
the sum of f25 for counsel fees.
Addie Rush Va. Napoleon l.. Rush. This
is divorce petition in which the pc
titioner sets forth that the respondent has
left the State and has not obeyed the
order Of the court In regard to allowance.
The grounds OF divorce are extreme
cruelty, adultrey and non-support.
Common Pleas Matters,
The following have been flied in the
Common Pleas Court today:
j. u. Giguere against the Pennsylvania
Fire Insurance Company, OF Philadel-
phia. This is a suit Ia which the plaintiff
seeks to recover on an insurance Oolicy
for goods destroyed by fire in build
ing situated on Main street, Woonsocket
on June 5, 1894 The ad damDum is placed
at $1,000. A similar suit Is also brought
against the London and Lancashire Fire
Insurance Company OF Liverpool, England.
Attorneys-Wiison Jenekes for the
plaintiffs.
Walter Scott & Co., ct al. VS.. Home In
surance Company. Giguere Is also Joined
ss plaintiff in the suit " hich is similar in
character to the two preceding. The ad
dsmnum is placed at 5000 Wilson &
Jenckes are the plaintiffs Attorney.
In the criminal complaint OF Joseph w.
Nickerson, prosecuting officer OF the s. T..
C. A., against Jacob kwait, charged with
driving q horse unit Tor use, the jury this
morning reported shat they were unable
10 agree and were dismissed from further
consideration OF the case.
First Case OF ITS Kind.
- 4as-42cre filed today in the common
pleas division OF the Supreme Court in
the case OF Henry Lucier ct ux vs..
isa peculiar cese. and toe first OF its
kind which ever came up here. 10
il an action 10 recover $4,000 for
injuries alleged 90 have been
received by Mrs. Lucier, while standiug
in her yard last Fourth OF July night, by
the falling stick OF a sky-rocket,
said TO have becn sent up
ia the ceie bretiOn given by
the city. The plaintiffs sue, Individually,
the members Of the committee on the
Fourth OF July ceiebratlon. The city
and committee demur, claiming hat this
rocket was not one fired BY the city:
bat if j. had been part of the
celebration, they were only agents
Of the public and not liable individually.
The city, through the City Solicitor,
oemurs on nino grouuds, claiming
that the celebration ~ holiday ia not
within the implied powers OF a municipal
rpOraf