The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-04-15
HEARD IN COURT.
Charles G. DufY's Petition for New
Trial.
A Providence Taxpayer Was on the
Jury in this Case Against the City.

In the appellate division of the Su-
preme Court before Matteson, G. j., and
| Associate Justices Stiness and Tilling hast
a number of cases were heard today.
The most important was petition for
new trial in the suit against the city OF
Providence by Charles q. Duffy, in which
| O verdict, at recent trial, was
| given for the defendant in the common
pleas division Of the court. +. ID. Bas-
sett, attorney for Duffy, stated that q
| member Of the jury that tried the case
was taxpayer of the city of Providence,
| though q resident of Centredale. Charles
| A. Brown was the man who sat on
the jury in the trial OF the case, and
| his affidavit was read stating the fact that
he was taxpayer of the city of Provi-
| dence. The affidavit OF one member Of
the jury that the counsel for Duffy had
made the usual statement in opening the
case to the jury that any member Of the
| jury who was tax payer OF the
| city of Providence, etc., should state
| the fact and they would be excused. The
| plaintiff, his father and Mr.. Bassett,
| counsel for the plaintiff, all submitted
| affidavits to such a statement being made.
Assistant City Solicitor Baker claimed
| that the statement above referred to was
not in fact made, and the affidavits of
| the foreman and six other members of the
| jury that tried the case, as we'll as that OF
City Solicitor Colwell, are offered to
| substaptiate his statement. Ii
is, however, admitted that Judge
| Rogers, before whom the case was tried,
said to the clerk: "No city men on the
| jury" Brown, the taxpayer, who sat
on the jury, claims he did not hear any
thing said about city taxpayers and
that as he wanted to go to Boston on the
| day of the trial he would have been glad
| to have been excused. He also claims
that Duffy knew at the close of the first
| day of the trial that he, Brown, was q
taxpayer Of Providence.
| A hearing was had on the demurrers
| filed to the bill in equity OF w. B. Beach
asking to have claim of $500 for money
loaned TO, and used on the estate
| Of tho late Elias Beach paid
before the claims of large numbers
OF creditors OF said estate are settled.
George B. Barrows, counsel for Beach,
claimed that on account of the amount of
money loaned by w. Il. Beach to the de-
ceased for the Improvement Of
his estate the latter agreed to
devise the property to the former
| and that in equity the agreement had the
| effect of an agreement to convey, and
| should be enforced. Counsel In support
| of demurrer argued that the agreement
| referred to was not such one as would
| be enforced by the court against credi-
| tors. Bassett & Mitchell are counsel for
| the creditors.
Morrissey VS.. Providence Telegram.
| This is an action for trespass on the case
| for libel, and was heard on the defendants
demurrer to plaintiffs declaration. The
| case arises from an article published in
The Telegram on November q, which
stated "that this Is tho man-ex- fireman
| and ex-convict John Morrissy, who is
running Mayor Olney's campaign"
Charles A. Wilson, in support of the de-
murrer, claimed tnat the words ex-convict
was not actionable per sc, and as there
were no PREDATORY or colloquial
words used in the declaration,
that the demurrer was good He
made long argument and held that the
language used must be idered in its
most innocent sense. Edward L. Mitchell
argued against the sustaining OF the
demurrer claiming that the words must
be taken in their ordinary meaning and
that the declaration was good one.
The case OF slander brought by Asa III.
Richmond VS.. William Trep was also
heard on demurrer. In this case il is al
legged the defendant said OF the plaintiff.
who formerly worked for him: "The lying
dog, he never paid me cent - and
also she Is q swindler. Daniel II. Ballou,
in support OF the demurrer, urged that
the words used were not slanderous in the
sense of charging embezzement as alleged
in the plaintiffs declaration. Bassett &
Mitchell were the plaintiffs attorneys.
The following rescript was handed down
today: George III. Richmond VS.. Angeline
Richmond. The motion OF the plaintiff
for discontinuance Is denied on account
OF cross petition for divorce filed by the
respondent. The respondent is allowed
90 week to enable her to support herself
and her infant children.
Matilda Mason VS.. Laura Wheeler ct al.
Heard on complainant's motion to enter
decree and respondents motion to reargue.
Common Pleas Division.
In the common pleas division no cases
were tried today and the only business
transacted was the swearing lin of jury.
Civil Court Cases.
Thomas j. Ward VS.. William Mulley.
Decision writ discontinued for failure to
comply with order OF court ordering
surety for costs.
Nelson Morgan vs.. Burrill Burroughs.
Decision for plaintiff for $500.
Robert O'Connor and wife vs.. William
Burke and wife. Decision: Plaintiffs