The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-03-28
HEARD IN COURT.
No New Trial in the Anthony Case
Against City.
Judge Stiness Wrote the Opinion
Handed Down Today-A Brief Re-
sumo OF an Interesting Case.

An opinion was handed down this
morning by Judge Stiness in the case OF
Carolina M. Anthony ct al. VS.. City oi
Providence, in which the petition @ Tor
new trial is denied. Inc
nation OF land by the city in the
poses. The land referred to
was originally owned by John Anthony.
John Anthony went TO California and gave
TO Joseph q. Johnson the power OF at.
torney over the land to dispose OF
plated II and then decided 1t to George l..
Tucker, as SO many house lots on
the Anthony plat Ii was then
condemned by the city and
the question arose between Tucker and
the Anthony heirs as to whom should re-
ment between the two parties 1t
was decided that Tucker should
take the house lots, reiinquishing
all claim to the streets between
them and that the Anthony heirs
heirs have the land on which the
then received from the city the compen-
sation for the land claimed as his. From
this the case narrowed down To one be-
tween the Anthony heirs and the city,
Tucker being out OF it and satisfied.
On the first trial the counsel for
lnt AnlnOHNN cldlIiitu ludl III
chaser of a house lot was not entitled
TO the half OF the street in front
OF that lot, as he would be in
buying lot on thoroughiare already
graded and laid out. The Cty's
claim was that the purchaser
OF plated land did have this right TO half
the street, unless specially reserved; and
as Tucker had bought all the
house lots in the plat, he
of necessity had taken all the street land
and the Anthony heirs had no claim what
ever on the city. The case was decided at
the first trial about year ago
The Anthony heirs based their petition
for new trial on an alleged
erroneous ruling of the Judge,
in which he had agreed with the
city's counsel on the rights TO the street
with the lot. The ruling is sustained
by the Supreme Bench and
the petition denied. The salient point OF
no reason for distinction between line
drawn and a line described"
VIII Have to Pay Grocery Bill.
The "twelve good men and true" whose
duty it was TO decide upon the case OF
Patrick ID. Sullivan and wife vs.. George
Baker listened for two hours this
morning to the reasons for
and against George Baker's paying
M. and Mrs. Sullivan $3.50. The defend
ant was George Baker, Jr., and
his counsel's argument was that it
was the father and not the son who was
responsible for the grocery bill. The jury
thought differently, and the younger
Baker was ordered to pay the grocery
people the amount charged.
Docket for March 30.
tAppellaie Divisiop-j -
1882. Charles A. Barney ct ux vs.. Cath
crime A. Moulton ct al. Attorneys-Wal-
ter III. Barney for complainant, Ballou and
Jackson for respondent.
3515. Thomas j. Kelly vs. James J.
Ryder ct al. Attorneys-J. r. Lonsdale
and b. j. Padien for complainant, George
j. West for respondent. .s.s
Common Pleas Division.l
759. Simon Sander VS.. Abraham Fink
elstein, appellant. Attorneys--Page Il
Owen for plaintiff, j, M. Brennan for de-
fendant.
20. Moses w. Horton ct ux VS.. Cornelia
G. Horton. Tillinghast for
plaintiff, Ripley q Brown for defendant.
16. Jeremiah Sullivan vs.. Patrick
Burke appellant. Attorneys-T. II. Co.'S
grove for plaintiff, j. Harris for defendant.
PSI. Patrick O'Reilly, appellant VS..
Isaac Hahn. Attorneys-Basset and
Mitchell for plaintiff, Wilson & Jenckes
for defendant.