The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-03-21
Assault Case on Trial Before
Judge Rogers.
Judge Wilbur Listens to an Action OF
Trespass on the Case.
Opinions Handed Down In the APP
pellate Division.


suit of Honora Hunt against Michael ID.
O'Connor 10 being tried. The defendant
Is the SON in-law of Mrs. Hunt who came
from Ireland about two years ago to live
with her daug hter, Mrs. O'Connor. The old
lady remained in the family about
year, and then went to the home OF an
other daughter. On Nov. IL she went to
to O'Connor's house to get feather bed
which she claimed belonged TO her. Mrs.
O'Connor was away, and IL 10 claimed that
her husband elected the old LADY
violently from the house, pushing her
down O pair OF stairs, and out into the
yard, breaking her arm. The defendant
claims that when Mrs. Hunt came to his
house and asked for the bed, he told her
that she must wait till his wife returned,
as he knew nothing about the
bed. Therenpon the old lady became
very angry and used harsh language, at
tempting to strike at the defendant. Not
wishing to have a scene, he gently put her
out of the house, using no violence. She
broke her arm, subsequently, by falling
over some wires In the yard. The suit Is
for $1,000. j. M. Brennan appears for
the plaintiff and Daniel Ballou for the
defendant.
Mr.. Justice Wilbur listened to che case
of Hugh Linton against Gideon Mailhot.
This Is an action of trespass on the case
for negligence. The facts alleged by the
complainant are that the plaintiff
was driving from his place Of
business TO his home on September s, 1894.
When on South Bend street, ,Pawtucket, the
defendants team came up behind him and
ran into the plaintiffs team up.etting and
throwing Linton and his coachman out
upon the ground. The team owned by
Mailhot was driven by boy in his en-
ploy. c. j. Farnsworth appears for the
plaintiff and Edwards d Angel for the
defendant.
Appellate Court.
An opinion has been handed down in
the suit of the Mantle Mills Company
VS.. Riverside & Oswego Mills ct al. The
question Is raised whether an action at
law can be brought against an assignee for
the benefit of creditors to test the validity
OF claim which he has disallowed.
The public laws provide that person
having a claim against an insoivent debtor
shall p-esent it to the ass signee, and IL he
disallows it the claimant shall, within
go days from notice, bring suit,
or be barred from participation in
the assigned estate. 1t is urged
BIZ the defendant in support OF
their exceptions that the remedy is in
equity and not at law, and that no verdict
or judgment can be rendered against the
assignees, because they have made no
promise. The language of the statute is
thus called in question. What sort of
"suit" is meant? The respondents
urge that 1t must be q
suit in equity, because that
-.
OF proceeding in equity, as "sction" is
at law. The court does not think that the
words suit and action are used with such
exactuess that they can be taken in linn
tied sense. The word suit is the more
general term and is broad enough to
cover either form OF proceeding; but not
so the provisions OF the statute.
There is no provision for a
merely aeclaratoTy judgment for the
amount due; or Judgment against assets
merely. At law, 1t must be personal
judgment against the assignee, for which
he must be personally liable; or else the
court must either legislate into the
statute something by implication, which
is not there, or vary the common
form of Judgment so as TO
make it amount only to a declaratory
that the defendants are estopped!from OBJ
jecting to the form OF the action, because
they have neither pleaded nor objected
10 cit for the four years during
which the case has been in court,
and because it is said in the
agreed statement OF facts that the
suit was duly brought in accordance with
the statute on a disallowed claim. The
court holds that there is no estoppal by
the agreement. The court therefore grants
the respondents petition for new trial.
Josiah NJ. Addeman ct al. VS.. Rebecca
r. Rice ct al. The court is of the opin-
ion and instructs the colnplsinants
First, that Mrs. Rice is entitled to one
undivided third Of the testator's
entire property, after delivery
OF the specific legacies. Second,
that the teststor's debts, funeral ex-
penses, expenses OF administration and
pecuniary lcgacies are to be paid out OF
the residuum; 3, that the respondents
are entitled in equal shares to what shall
then remain; 4, that the complainants
shall apply and distribute the fund in
their hands to the payments and in the
order specified, except that IL the sums
which would otherwise be paid to
the respondents shall be insufficient
for the payment OF the testator's debts,
etc, these sums shall be first applied to
payment, and sufficient money shall be
taken from the share OF Mrs. Rice to make
up any deficiency.
District Court.
Decisions were rendered in civil cases
today as follows:
Annie g. wyman VS.. Robert w. Mason.
Decision for defendant for costs, plaintiff
submitting.
Watson, Newell & Co. We. $. & b. Led
erer. Decision for plaintiff for 500 73 and
costs.
John II Pray Va. Thomas II. Brownell.
Decision for defendant for costs, plaintiff
submitting.
Court Calendar for March ID.
The calendar OF the Supreme Court for
Friday 10 as follows:
appellate Division)
1885. Joseph p. Manton vs.. Chase Ele-
vator aud Manton Windlsss Co. Attor-
n LII -.