The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-10-29
HEARD IN COURT.
Suit for $4,000 Brought Against
the City by John Blessing.

Before Mr.. Justice Rogers the case OF
John Blessing against the City OF
Providence ct al, was opened this morn
ing. TIE case is suit for go, 900 damages
caused by the alleged negligence on
the part OF the city in not properly guard
ing the approaches to new railroad
bridge on Charles street, near West River,
which In November. 1892, was in process
OF construction and had reached
such a. state OF compietion, as
opened for travel. 1t is asserted
by the plaintiff that while he wss walking
along Charles street on the evening OF
Nov. IL, 1892. he crossed this bridge and
on reaching the other side fell
over O stone wall to q distance OF
IL feet, injuring bis back. The plaintiff
further asserts that the spot here he fell
had no lights or barriers to protect the
pedestrian, and that there was no negli-
Rence OF his part. The city claims that
the sidewalk on which the plaintiff was
walking was barred to public travel and
that lanterns were hung along the side OF
the wall. After the opening OF the case
premises. Page & Owen appear for the
plaintiff, and the city solicitor for the de-
fendant.
In case of Asadour Kalinian against
Ahajan Milikian to recover 800 loaned by
the plaintiff to the defendant. Judge
Wilbur entered judgment for the
plaintiff for 800 with interest, the
defendant not appearing.
In the suit of Thomas Grimes Il Brother
against Frances McKenna q nil dicit
judgment was entered for the plaintiff OF
$9s.22.
The criminal cases on the city solicitors
docket have been assigned to be heard
Novemb ber z.
Appellate Division.
uBefore the appellate division the
motion of the defendant for new
trial. The case was tried on March z,
1894, In the common pleas division and the
jury gave the defendant q verdict of 5000,
the full amount ad damnum alleged in the
writ. The facts in the case are Tint the
while at work in the mill OF the defend
ant corporation by the breaking
OF a belt. This belt struck the
plaintiff on the cheek, cutting il
through and knocking out several
teeth. The grounds on which a new trial
is claimed 10 that the verdict was against
the evidence, and that the amount was
totally out of proportion to the injury
done. r.. q. Mowry appeared for the de-
fendant and Miller and Brown for plain
tiff.
In the case of James NJ. Fay ct ux. ct al.
against James X. Feeley ell AL, which
came before the appellate division on n
motion for a new trial, the appellate
judges have denied the defendants petit
tion. The case was brought by Fay to set
aside q will, undue evidence being alleged
by the plaintiff. The jury set aside one
clause In the will and sustained all others,
thus bring up question somewhat novel
in Rhode Island law. The court is of the
opinion that the jury might properly have
found the verdict which they arrived at.
District Court.
The civil cases heard in court to-day are
as follows:
Isaac Michaelovitz ct ux.. VS.. Reuben j.
Levins ct ux. for assault upon the de-
fendant's wifo. Judgment for plaintiff for
s15 and costs.
Michaele Arcigli eft ux. vs.. Santa Rossi,
TO recover S35 with interest. Judgment
for plaintiff OF s54.60.
Irving NJ. Chsmplin vs.. Richard j.
Reeves, to recover $40 for goods bought
of plaintiff. 1t is set forth
in the allegation that Reeves was
an apothecary in Providence, and after he
bought the goods from the plaintiff
he Jailed. His property was sold to
Clafiin Brothers, who aiterward put the
defendant I'm charge OF the establishment
The plaintiff claims conspiracy on the
part OF Reeves in the transaction. Case
still Dending.