The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-11-12
LARGE DAMAGES.
Suit of GOrham POmrOy and
others Against City. :,
Verdict for Defendant in the Evans
Hamilton SANDER Case.

Before Judge Wilbur and a jury was be-
gun, late this forenoon, the trial of the
suit of Gorham II. Pomroy and others,
formerly co-partners as Pomroy * Hop
kins against the City Treasurer of Provi-
dence TO recover $40, 600 for damages done
TO the coal pockets OF the piaintin's in the
harbor OF the river by the dredging OF
I he city near the plaintiffs property OPP
posi- te Elm street.
The plaintiffs in their declaration state
that in 1875 the city OF Providence built
a large main sewer in Elm street which
was carried down into the harbor just
south of the coal pockets operated by
the plaintiff for the carrying on of their
business. That for many years after the
building OF the eve 1t was the custom
OF the city to take away the dirt that ac-
cumulated on the river bottom from time
to time, and that this did not interfere
in any way with the plaintiffs property.
But, IN the year 1887, the city authorities
made up their minds that il would be
better to dredge the river at the mouth
OF the sewer deeper that they had there
lofore done. Having made their plans
they proceeded to dig a deep hole or
pocket near where the coal pockets OF the
plaintiffs were. 1t was thought that by
dredging below the river bottom that the
city would rave less frequently to re-
move the sand that accumulated at the
mouth OF the sewer.
Shortly after this deep dredging was
done the plaintiffs allege the piles and
wall that supported their coal pockets
were so badly weakened that they mad 10
abandon their use. The piles were driven
out OF position and about 20 feet of wall
and piles rendered practically useless.
Because of this the plaintiffs claim they
had TO construct new pockets at great eX-
pense and they now seek to recover from
the City of Providence the large outlay of
money they were fore I'd to make because
OF It's destruction of their property.
The trial promises TO be a long one and
a numDer OF Questions of an intricate ma
ture are expected 10 arise.
Comstock * Gardner and Van Slyck
* Mumford appear for plaintiffs Francis
Colwell, city 3siicitor, and A. A.. Baker.
assistant city solicitor, represent the city
treasurer.
vERDIcr FOR DEPENDANT.
The closing arguments in the SANDER
suit OF James II. Evans and wife against
Thomas J. Hamilton were made this
morning. The Jury, after considering
the case q little over half an hour, brought
IN q verdict In favor of the defendant.
Hamilton wes accused of having used
certain language concerning Mrs. Evans
which she thought Injured her reputa-
tion.
STILL ANOTHER TRIAL.
In the rather well known case or Avian
+. Warren VS.. Arthur H.. Humes, the APP
pellate division of the Supreme Court has
granted a new trial because the charge
OF the presiding justice in the lower court
did not set forth clearly the defense to
the second count of the plaintiffs decla-
ration.
This is the second time a new trial Of
this case has been granted.
o~vERRULED.
In the case OF Ellen Cosgrove by guar
dian VS.. John &. Merz ct al. the court in
an opinion overruled the pleas, and holds
that the land in question being situated
in Providence suit to recover its posses
sion should have beer brought ia the
Sixth District Court.