The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-11-12
HEARD IN COURT.
A $25, 900 Suit Against the Union
Railroad Company on Trial.

A 5000 suit IL in progress today
before Judge Rogers in the common
pleas division. The plaintiff is Will
liam II. Sanford and the defend
ants are the Union Railroad company
and Josiah A. Whaley. The facts in the
case as set forth by the declaration are
that the plaintiff on the afternoon Of
September 8, 1890, took an open South
Providence car at Mathewson street
near Chapel. The car was so full that
Sanford, who stepped on the car on the
left side, was obliged to stand on the foot
board. As the car was turning on to
Weybosset street low gear crossed from
Richmond street toward Msthewson, and
the car and wagon came so near together
that the foot of the plaintiff was badly
crushed and he was otherwise injured.
A previous suit brought against the
Union Railroad Company was non-suited
by MIR. Justice Douglas, on the ground
that the car driver could not tell how
near the low-gear was TO the car. The
plaintiff then joined the owner
of the low-gear in the suit.
The fight is thus three cornered
'unesr Bsiiou d Jeness appeared for the
plaiutiff; Frank Arnold appears for Josiah
A. W haley, and the Bakers and s. w. X.
Allen represent the Union Railroad Com
pany. After the opening OF the case the
jury took view OF the place where the
accident occurred. The low-gear and the
car were both present to illustrate the way
in which the collision happened.
In the trial of the case some dispute
arose in regard 10 the position which Mr..
Whaley, through his counsel, occupied as
regards to the co-defendant. Mr.. Allen
stated to the court hat 1t was perfectly
evident that Mr.. Arnod's affiliation was
w1th he plaintiffs cause Inasmuch
as he sal With the plaintiffs attorneys and
offered them suggestions. Mr.. Arnold
replied tnat be thought such insinuations
were unfair and requested that he might
have a separate table at which TO sit. The
court decided that such action would be
unnecessary and the case was allowed to
proceed.
Before Mr.. Justice Wilbur in the GRIM
inal court room the case of the State
against William II. Arnold, in
dicted for maintaining common
nuisance, was called, and as tie
defendant persisted in his plea OF not
guilty jury trial followed. This Is
Johnston liquor case and the facts al.
legged by the State are that the defendant
kept place of business on
known as the "old Hotel"
The defendant had liquor license, but no
notel license, and. therefore, had
no right TO sell liquor on Sunday,
as the State asserts he did. The
defence is q general denial OF the charge.
The assistant attorney general appears
for the State and Page & Owen for the
defendant.
District Court
The following civil cases were heard to-
day.
Michael Lubrsno vs. Carmeno Di Mar
cho. This is a suit to recover go for SER
vices as interpreter i'm the case RS the
defendant against the Builder Iron
Foundry. Continued.
Robert III. Tobin vs. John c. Quinn,
assignee. This is a suit 20 recover $1S for
rent owed TO the plaintiff by w. IL.
Coughlin. Judgment for plaintiff for SIS
and costs.
Patrick J. Calvin, VS.. Charles West,
alias. This is suit to recover
SG675 for lawyers fees. Judgment for
amount claimed and costs.
Metropolis Misunderstanding Company
VS.. Patrick O'Douald ct ux. This is a
suit for trover and conversion OF property.
Decision for plaintiff for 81 and costs.
Gilbert M. King vs.. Thomas X. Dawley.
This is SUIT TO recover $3.50 claimed to
bo due the plaintifffor certain typewriter
CODY books delivered to the defendant.
Dawley claims that he simply borrowed
tho books. Decision for the plaintiff
for 1915.
George &. Lake VS.. James A. Bailey.
Defendants submit TO decision OF $50 and
costs. Ia this case Il IL claimed that one
OF the elephants belonging 10 Bailey "
circus which was In Providence in June
1891, stepped into the farm wagon OF Lake
during q street parade destroying % dozen
eggs aud 2O6 cans OF milk.