The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-09-28
HEARD IN COURT.
Suit Of Daniels, Cornell &
Co., VS.. D. 0urinet & Go.

Only one new case Is on trial In the Su-
preme Court today. IL IN before Mr..
Justice Wilbur in the common pleas di-
vision, being that OF Daniels, Cornell a.
Co. against ID. Ourinet * Co. The action
is TO recover the sum OF s736,7S for goods
sold and delivered by the plaintiff To the
defendant. There Is no dispute about the
amount OF the bill, but IL Ii alleged that
az the time of the contraction of the
debt, which was between October, 1893,
and January, 1894, ID. Ourinet had left the
firm and ID. II. Ourinet, his son, was the
sole owner. A similar case brought by
Greene, Anthony IL Co. against Ourinet
was detaulted to the plaintiff. =. =. lap
ham appears for the plaintiff and Stone Il
Lovejoy for the defendant.
The case relative to the condemned
park lands Is not yet completed. So many
points of law are before the court for
decision that the jury have been excused
pending their adjustment.
John Kelahcr, who brought suit
against the Union Railroad Company for
injuries received last October by the plat
form Of one of their cars breaking and
lacerating his right leg, won his case in
the Common Pleas Court yesterday. His
suit was for 5000 and the jury gave him
s7O0.
The grand jury will report Monday
The complaints considered by them in
clude the pool gambling cases.
ing those of the October assignment is
prepared and ready for circulation. 1t
numbers over 1900 civil cases exclusive OF
the personal property tax suits, 203 in
number. The amount In suit in these are
so insignificant and the instances in
which answers are filed so rare as to rem
Ger IL unnecessary TO burden the docket
with their enumeration.
Tomorrow is hearing day by the court
in chambers
The calendar Is as follows:
Appellate Division.
97s7. (Divorce) Charles III Russell VS..
Nellie A. Russell. Attorneys-H. A. Nc
Kenney for plaintiff, j. M. Brennan for
1852. (Divorce) Emma Palmer VS.. John
Palmer. Attorneys-Page 81 Owen for
plaintiff; -- for defendant.
9S40. (Divorce) Sarah j. Barton vs..
William ID. Barton. Attornsys-Page &
Owen for plaintiff, - for defendant.
9S41 (divorce). Lydia A. Sherman VS..
Owen for plaintiff; -- for defendant.
3s02 equity. Joseph o. Doyle VS..
A. Bruce Mcmillan. Attorneys-C. Il. d.
c. J. Farnsworth for plaintiff; - for
defendant.
320e (equity). Thomas G. Greene, as
signee, vs.. Jackson Bank eft al. Attor-
neys-T. G. Greene for plaintiff; w. q.
Rocker and Bassett 81 Mitchell for de-
fendant.
9s71 (divorce). Lillian @. Hall VS.. Elmer
Hall. Attorneys-A. j. Cushing for plain
tin for defendant.
Common Pleas Division.
Not numb bered. Mary Brunell vs.. Felix
Dumas, alias. Attorneys - William G..
Rich for plaintiff; J. S. Hefiernan for de-
fendant.
7o47 Edmund s. Hopkins VS.. Samuel
ID. keene. Attorneys - Il. NJ. Bosworth
for plaintiff; Page a. Owen for defendant.
sos. Robert HellmRn vs.. Natchug Silk
Company. Attorneys. j. Hahn for
plaintiff; e. III. Johnson for defendant.
Not numbered Charles A. Ray VS. Ray
Artesian Well and Machine Company.
Attorneys a. Greenough for plain
TN; j. j. Hahn for defendant.
1888. Che,usker Lodge VS.. Killian