The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-12-06
The Personal Liability of
Stockholders.
Administrative Suit Against
Relief Association.
Closing Arguments in Harris Case.
Other Matters Heard Today.

A hearing was had before CHER Just CO
Matteson and Justices Stiness and TIlling-
hast OIL the demurrer to the bill in
equity filed by Charles III. Warren II al,
VS.. the Providence Coal Company et al.
This bill is brought 70 recover a judg-
ment OF s69, 63S obtained in the common
pleas division OF the court from the stock
holders of the company at the time of
the filing of the bill. The claim is set up
that because OF the failure of he mpany
to fle statement OF the amount of its
paid-up capital, as provided by the statutes
OF lSl7, the stockholders of the company
are personally BILE for it's debts
The respondents maintain that they are
| not personally liable for the judgment
| obtained against them OH several grounds,
but chiefly because the provisions of the
| law have been completely changed in re-
| gard TO the liability of stockholders by
! more recent legislation than that OF 1S47
and the statutes OF limitations
james Tillinghast appeared for the
| plaintin and the respondents were repre-
| sented 10y the following well known at
torneys: {. Greene, James NJ. Ripley,
Cooke & ANGEL, Bassett q Mitchell,
| Thomas p. Barnefield, Edwards a.
Angel, Van Slyck q Mumford, and John
Henshaw.
Among the defences set up TO the bill,
filed by the respondents, in addition to
those above referred 70, are claims that
there was unnecessary delay on the part
of the complainant in bringing his
action; and that the enforcing of the
judgment against those parties who were
stockholders at the time of the filing OF
the bill would entail great hardships on
parties. who were in no way responsible
for the debt incurred.
The importance of the case is shown
by the number of counsel who appear on
the record. rhe court held the matter
for advisement.
Another hearing on demurrer was had
in the case of Isabella Munroe, admin
stratrix, VS.. Providence Permanent Fire.
mems Relief Association. Mrs. Munroe,
who il the widow of Frank II. Munroe,
brings suit against the association named
as aoministratrix on her husbands estate
to recover $1,000 alleged to be due under
the provisions of the by-laws of the asso-
citation. Munroe was at the time of his
death member in good standing Of the
defendant association.
The demurrer is on the ground that
Mrs. Munroe.can not recover from the as
sociation as administrator because 1t Is set
up in her bill OF complaint that she is
the widow OF the late member OF the as
sociation and claims as such the money
alleged to be due.
Samuel Norris, Jr. appeared for the de-
fendant and argued in support of the de-
murrer. {. Nj. Van Slyck represented the
complainant.
Some interesting points were brought
out in that hearing. 1t seems that the
money was to be paid to the members
| widows children, brothers or sisters, as
| he might appoint in writing, and II no
! appointment was made the association
| was to pay his funeral expenses.
Mr.. Munroe made no designation n
writing as to who should receive The
amount that might be due on his dea
and later on may come the importsn mt
Dtto inn n vuh oh a
money. The question brought up al to-
days hearing, though apparently minor
one. may very materially affect the matter
of who is entitled to the money.
In the case of Stephen c. Arnold 4 Son
VS.. Thomas Atwood judgment was given
for the plaintiffs for amount OF their ac-
count, less S25.
In the case Of John +. Goldsworthy VS..
John Coyle, defendants petition Tor
new trial. was heard. The latter is asked
for on the grounds that the presid ing
judge referred, in his charge TO the jury,
that the sheriff's deed to the plaintiff was
not properly drawn; and that as the levy
was made on Sertember 3, 1891, and the
sale took place on December 5. three full
months had not elapsed as required by
law.
Mr.. Goldsworthy bought the property
in dispute at sheriff's sale, and then
brought an action of trespass and eject
ment 10 get possession of the property.
which Mr.. Coyle refused TO give up and
obtained judgment. he defendant had no
counsel in the lower court, and made rather
sensational defence. Today be was rep
resented hy +. w. Rlodgett. a
Ann Gillen VS.. Henry w. Salisbury, eft
al. Final decree entered.
COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.
/ The closing ar !umeuts in the case OF
of William NJ. Garris VS.. the Old Col
ony Railroad were begun this noon, j.
NJ. Ripley speaking for he defendant and
ID. II. Potter for plaintiff.
None OF the cases on today's calendar
was ready for trial, and at the close OF
The charge OF Judge Rogers TO the jury,
in the case OF Trask vs.. the city OF Woon-
socket, his division OF the court was
adjourned.
AGAINST wooNsoCKEr.
The Jury in the case of Abel G.. Frank
agsi last the city OF Woonsocket brought
in a verdict this afternoon in favor Of the
plaintiff and allowed him $1,000 damages.
The plaintiff claimed that owing TO
defect i'm sidewalk IN the northern city
he fell down an embaSk ment, broke
leg and was otherwise so badly injured
tEat for the past three years he has been
Il.