The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-01-13
HEARD IN COURT TODAY.
Numerous Small Cases Dis
posed Of in Two Divisions.
SPINNING co. WINS ITS CASE.
Asks for Preliminary Injunction
Other Matters OF More or Less I'm
portance I'm Court Today-Monday's
Docket.

A hearing will be given next Saturday
on the case of John III. Smith VS.. City OF
Providence. An attempt was made by the
plaintiff to get hearing today, but the
defense asked for time until affidavits
could be filed.
To Recover Alleged Unjust Taxes.
William N. Harrison of Warwick claims
that he was unjustly taxed by the town
OF Warwick. He claims that at the time
the taxes were levied and paid he was not
q resident of Warwick. The defendant
filed demurrers and hearing on them
was given today.
Motions Heard.
The following cases were heard on mo-
tion william X. Lee VS.. Thomas Bentley;
Francis McKenna VS.. Thomas Bentley;
Isaac l.. Con vs. Hogan Brothers.
The case of Hogan Brothers vs.. John
X. Harris has been passed.
The suit of Robert Blackwood VS.. the
Peoples INSURANCE company has been
The case OF Charlotte r. Dndge vs.. ]. w.
Hogan ct al. Is continued to Tuesday.
A Receiver Asked.
James A. Windsor asks for receiver TO
be appointed to look after real estate and
tenement property. Edgar Windsor,
Windsor VS.. Windsor, occupies the tene-
ment in dispute and has, it is alleged,
paid no rent. The defendant complains
that Edgar is insolvent.
Preliminary Injunction Asked.
Mary Smith OF this city filed today
petition for a preliminary in
IstV nQ
+. Lewis and Deputy Sheriff William p.
Winslow be restrained from selling her
real and personal property.
Verdict for SSf.66.
The Jury yesterday afternoon brought
In verdict for SS166 for the plaintiff in
the case of John T. Blanchard, jr., vs.. The
Moswansicutt Ice Co.
Gets Full Amount.
The suit of the Easthampton Spinning
Co. VS.. Walter A. Hughes 4 Co., resulted
last night in verdict for the plaintiff for
the full amount claimed, $500.
Today's Rescripts.
the following decision in the case of Long
Island Brick company vs.. Frank w. Ar
This is a petition for lien for ma
tarisls furnished in the erection
Of "a building on a lot OF land
described in the petition and the right,
title and interest of the respondent, Frank
WrArnold, as the owner OF the land in
fee simple. a
The testimony discIoses that the con-
tmct for the erection OF the building was
made, not with Frank w. Arnold, but
with William ii. Arnold to whom Frank
w. Arnold had agreed to convey
hn In m
possession of it under the
the agreement of sale. As the contract
for the building was made with William
III. Arnold who was not at
the time the owner OF the
land, we do not think that the petition
can be sustained since the lien given by
Pub. Stat. II. i. cap. III, sec. 1, as amended
by public laws of Rhode Island, chap. 696
OF March n, 1883, is in case the building,
&C., is constructed, &c, ,"by contract with
or at the request of the owner" OF the
land.
The petitioner argues that as a contract
for the sale Of the land to William III. Ar
mold had been made he, as vendee under
the contract may be regarded as the
equitable owner Of the land within the
meaning of the statute, but even
IL this be SO, the petition does not run
against VIM. III. Arnold, nor does II seek
TO subject his interest in the land to a
In the case of Paul Landy VS..
Mary Landy i'm which the re-
spondent seeks to have the petitioner
attached for contempt for not pay
ing her the allowance ordered by |
the court, the court rules that |
the petition for an attachment for con-
tempt is denied and dismissed and the |
petition to vacate the order is granted.
Mondays Docket.
appellate Divisionl
2. William b. Beach, app. VS.. George |
N. Bullock. Attorneys-S. s. Lapham |
and G.. b. Barrows for plaintiff.
3. Same VS.. George n. Bullock ct ux. |
Attorneys-S. s. LApham and g. B. Bur- |
rows for plaintiff.
1868. Robert III. 1. Goddard VS.. City OF |
Providence. Attorneys-James Tilling- |
hast and Comstock & Gardner for |
plaintiff, city solicitor for defendant.
Common Pleas Divisionl
655. William O. Fifield VS.. William |
Dunning, app. Attorneys-W. A. Morgan |
for plaintiff, Page 4 Owen for defendant. |
673. Edward 9. Dubois VS.. Patrick |
McNeal, app. Attorneys, f. c. Dubois for |
plaintiff; p. j. Quinn for defendant.
An Imperative Duty.
What 0reafar dutv IL rosaihla than tho |