The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-02-20
HEARD IN COURT TODAY.
Suit to Recover Balance Of Account
OF $500.
Final Papers I'm the Springfield Bond
Case Fiicd-Court Notes--Docket for
Feb ~.


O. w. Poland, contractor for the dig
ging OF artesian wells, is the complainant
inc suit for $3.50 balance on account.
. The defendant is the Kent a Stanley
Company, jewellers. Poland, through
his agent, one Mitchell, con-
fracted to dig we'll Tor Mr'
Kent for the sum OF 5000 The bill was
afterwards reduced TO $500 on a plea OF
a hard times.n Poland dug the Well and
put the case in the hands OF his agent,
Mitchell. Later, finding that Mitchell
was doing a good deal OF sporting, he
became solicitous, and finding also that
Mitchell had already received $3.50 on ac-
count, be notified Kent not TO pay over
any more OF the money to his agent, whom
he soon afterward discharged. week
later he met MIR. Kent on the street and
the latter told him that he had paid
Mitchell the remainder of the $500. Mr..
Kent admitted, the complainant says,
that he understood the order OF
Mr.. Poland TO pay over no
more money TO Mitchell. The suit is
brought to recover the amount paid last to
Mitchell.
Sent 10 Common Pleas.
In the case of Marquis ID. l..
Mowry VS.. Wanton Nj. Harris
the Supreme Court has handed down
rescript remitting the case to the COM
mon pleas division with direction 10 amend
the pieadings SO as to present an issue OF
law for the decision OF the appellate dlvis-
ion.
A hearing was given in the appellate
division today in the case OF Charles h.
Clarke VS.. Almon Colvin ct al.
Filed Final Answer.
The respondents in the Springfield bond
case filed their final answers with Athe
Supreme Court at 5p. TAI. yesterday. These
papers briefly set forth the respondents
position and ask that the case be dis
missed.
The demurrer OF Daniel r.. .Ballou, Clinton
ID. Seliew, VIM. p. Vaughan and John w.
Angel sets forth that the complainants
have not in their bill as amended stated
such case as will entitle them in court
of equity to recover from the
defendants. They ask that the case be
dismissed with their reasonable costs in
this behalf most wrongfully sustained.
The city submits long document, ad-
mitting some OF the fundamental allega-
tions and also prays that the case be dis
missed.
The answer of William X. Potter, ex-
Mayor, denies that he made such threats
as are alleged in the ninth paragraph OF
the amended bill. AS he is no longer the
official head of the city government, he
praye to be removed from the list of those
against wheHa the action is brought.
The answer OF Frank +. Olney, Mayor,
states that he endorses the position of the
city and asks that the case be dismissed.
Docket for Feb. ~.
TAppellate Division.I
95S2. Marietta Wakefield VS.. Albert III.
Wakefield. Attorneys-Page & Owen for
complainant, II. w. Kimball for respond
ent.
is. Henry r. Beehler VS.. Daniels,
Cornell q Co., ct al. Attorneys-W. b.
Vincent and Amasa NJ. Eaton for COM
plainant, w. g. Rich for respondent.
1882. Arthur Cusson vs. Ludger Gemme
ct ux. Attorney. Il. Goldsworthy for
complainant.
tCommon Pleas Divisionl
q. VIM. HI. Draper VS.. James Il. Angel.
Attorneys-J. w. Hogan for plaintiff, j.
M. Brennan for defendant.
662. Paul Landy VS.. Patrick Burke, ap.
Attorneys -Bassett a. Mitchell for plain
tiff, A. Il. West for defendant.
397. Henry b. Fiske VS.. j. Mecgan.
Attorneys-Page n Owen for plaintiff,
Carroll 4 McParlin for defendants.
754. Julian A. Chase VS.. Alpha A. j.
Larned, ap. Attorneys Tanner d Cannon
for plaintiff; X. q. Mowry for defendant.
354. William Ill. Wood, tr., VS.. III. Il. d
j. N. Molter. Attorneys &
Greenough for plaintiff, Page & Owen for
defendant.
Arrsignment OF criminals out on bail.