The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-12-13
MUST STOP.
Tenants of Langley Wharf
to Have Peace.
Col. Honey Cannot Sue Gard
ner Reynolds & Co. for Rent.
Plaintiff Defaulted--Verdict Against
the Union Railroad Company.

In a rescript filed by Chief Justice Mat
teson in the appellate division of the Su-
preme Court this morning in the case OF
Gardner B. Reynolds & Company VS..
Samuel X. Honey, ct AL, wherein mo-
tlon TO continue the Injunction was here
tofore granted, is ordered contin-
ued. The rescript states that the testi-
mony shows that the Langley wharf in
Newport was let TO the complainants as
tenants from year TO year, and that the
lessons in leasing the same acted for
themselves and the other parties in inter
est. That the respondent Honey purchased
the one-eighteenth of the estate and took
his interest subject TO the tenancy created
ny The letting, by the terms Of which let
tiGg the complainants were Bound 10
pay the rent reserved to the lessons dur
ing thescOntnuance of.the-lease. Honey
cannot revoke the authority OF the lessons
TO receive the rents or compel the COM
plallcnts TO pay any one except the lessons
in accordance with the contract of let
ting. IL also states that the letting being
JOINT, the grantors of Honey could have
maintained no suit for the rent without
joining their associates IN their suit. The
respondent. Honey, az the successor OF
the title, the ch.ot justice holds, cannot
maintain an action for the rent any more
than could his grantors without joining
the other owners in such action.
. The injunction Is therefore Continued
and Colonel Honey is enjoined from
prosecuting tre suits already brought
against the compliments for rent and
also from bringing any further suits.
This case was heard on Saturday last
and Colonel Honey claimed that. having
as before stated. purchased one
eighteenth OF the Langley wharf estate he
had right TO collect one-eighteent1 of
the rent This rent, Colonel Honey
claimed, amounted to Il for every four
days, and the complainants in this action
being the tenants OF such property he at
tached their wagons and horses three
different times. The present suit was
brought TO restrain the respondents from
continuing his very annoying suits with
a successful result.
DIVORCE CASES.
The following divorce matters were
heard in tnis division TO-DAY:
Before Tillinghast, ':
Nellie NJ. Phillips vs. James q. Phillips.
Desertion and non-support. Granted.
T.. Il Warn er for petitioner.
Herbert Hiekling VS.. Grace Hiekling.
adultery. Granted. Lee u Tillinghast
for petitioner.
Sarah Shaw VS.. Thomas Shaw. Non
support. Granted. Cooke q Angel for
petitioner.
Joseph Villermaire VS.. Hermione Vile
maire Continued drunkenness. Granted.
a. i. Gushing for petitioner.
Charles Robinson vs. Jennie Il. RobinA
son. Adultery and desertion. Joseph II.
Munroe for petitioner.
Lydia NJ. Cain VS.. Jacob l.. Cain. Ex-
treme cruelty. Granted. j. III. Munroe
for petitioner.
Nellie NJ. Dodge vs. Frank II. Dodge.
Extreme cruelty, continued drunkenness,
desertion and non-support.
Before Stiness, j
Carl q. III. Litchenberg vs.. Annie j.
Litchenberg. Adultery and desertion.
Granted. Page q Owen for petitioner.
Sarah a. Shedd VS.. Horace Shedd.
Non.support. Granted. Page d. Owen
for petitioner.
Mary r. Ammons VS.. George Y. Am
mons. Extreme cruelty and adultery.
Jennie NJ. Samothe VS.. Camille H.
samothe. Non.support, continued
drunkenness and extreme cruelty.
Granted. E.W. Blodgett for petitioner.
COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.
The first case tried in this division to-
day was that OF John NJ. Dawes VS.. David
h. W. Briggs. Ii was suit brought to
recover a balance of S155 that tho plain
tiff claims IL due him for the painting of
two houses in Edgewood, Cranstou.
-t fIe- case VIE OF gfTIEffy entered fh-tfie
Sixth District Court, but an appeal was
taken on claim for jury trial. The de-
fendaut alleges the work was not done
The jury went for a view OF the build
ings, the quality OF the exterior decorat-
ing OF which - IN dispute. T.. c. Pierce
for plaintiff; John Henshaw for defend
ant.
PLAINTIFF NoN-sUITED.
The American Loan Company was nom
suited by Judge Rogers in its case against
stephen Il. Lynch this morning because
the action being OF trover and conversion
no demand was proven or the plaintiffs
part before the commencement OF its suit.
The defendant, evidence was intro
duced TO snow, had borrowed money on
three promissory notes. the first Of which
the second dated Feb. IL 1894, was for
ga. 80, and the third, dated March Stn OF
the same year was for 500. Interest on
the first two notes was a, the rate of five
per cent. month, and of tho last one at
tho rate of eight per cent n month. The
money, il was claimed by witnesses for
the plaintiff was loaned by 4. III. Rose,
who took n mortgage on the defendants :
household furniture, valued at about $500.
This mortgage was assigned by Rose to
the plaintin. According to the testimony
OF Mr. Rider, manager OF the London
Loan Company, a number OF citizens OF
this city are engaged charitably loaning
money 20 parties ia need OF II at the
modest rates above noted.
When the money was loaned to Lynch
he resided in Edgewood, but he is now
a resident of East Prov dence. A demand
for the payment Cf interest which be was
IN default for several months was made
Continued on Page 3.