The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-09-23
WERE THE GATESIN ORDER
Trial of A. c. Gardiner Suit for Heavy
Damages Begun.
Claim Made that the N. ", N. II. a. III.
Railroad Company Were Negligent.

Before Judge Wilbur and jury OF the
common pleas division of the Supreme
Court this morning was begun the trial
OF the suit OF Alonzo G. Gardiner against
the New York New Haven & Hartford
Railroad, Old Colony division, for $40, 900
damages for negligence on the part OF the
latter in not having its gates at the cross
ing known as Hampton Meadow, near
harrington, in proper condition on
March o, OF the present year.
The plaintiff alleges that on the forenoon
OF March his son, Arthur Harrington
Gardiner, a minor, who at that time
drove milk cart for him. went across
the tracks OF the defendant company
over highway at the place above named,
driving about hundred feet from the
crossing to deliver milk to customer.
That on returning, and when near the
crossing he saw the gates up, and was
going TO drive over II, but when he and
the team were about Is feet from the rail-
road track man employed as a crossing
tender rushed out OF shed and told him
TO stop as train was coming. This the
boy claims he did, as quickly as possible,
but that the noise made by the locomotive
scared the horse and IL ran in front OF the
locomotive and was knocked down and
killed, the vehicle smashed up, aud the
boy driver SO badly injured that his
father has been since deprived OF his SER
NiNNS ehu put w sItdt loi lnVdl-
cal attendance for MIN. The claim is
also made that the gates at the crossing
were frozen at the time the accident oc-
Cured and that the boy who was driving
the team should have been notified before
he got as near the crossing as he did.
At the conclusion of the opening adj
dress to the jury by James w. Williams,
attorney for the plaintiff, Frank 5.
Arnold attorney for the defendant made
a request that the jury take a view OF
the premises and the request was granted.
AS the jury could not get back from
tteir view OF the place where the acci-
dent occurred until late this afternoon,
Judge Wilbur said no testimony would
be taken today.
In Judge Rogers division the case OF
Herbert T.. Barney against George b.
Hussey and wife was tried. The plaintiff
alleged that for number OF years he
was employed by George W. Brown. well
know as Captain Brown, to do repairs on
his property. That he, the plaintiff
shingled house at his request, that he
supposed belonged TO Brown, but which
he afterward discovered had been decided
by the latter to his daughter. Though
this deed was made in 1888, IL was not re-
corded until 1895 after Captain Browns
death. For shingling the house In ques-
tion, MIR. Barney claims s207.0s Ia due
hiH, which he believes he should recover
from the real owner of the property.
y. g. Pierce was attorney Tor the plain
tin and Charles T.. Salisbury for the de-
fencant. There were a number OF techni-
cal points raised In the case and the ex-
ceptions taken by counsel on both sides
from Judge Rogers rulings were quite
numerous.
When the testimony for the plaintiff was
all in, Mr.. Salisbury, i'm behalf OF the
defendants, asked for verdict for his
client as the plaintiff had not shown any
contract TO be entered into by his client
with the plaintiff The motion was grant
ed by the court.