The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-06-07
RIGHT TO STREETS.
Subject Of Argument in Appellate
Division Supreme Court.

In the appellate division ofthc Supreme
Court the first case heard this morning
was that of Osborn Swan VS.. James w.
Covile. This was @ bill In equity with
a prayer for an injunction to restrain
the defendant from digging up certain
culverts and interfering with bulk
head on Sherburne street, which the COM
plainant and other owners Of property on
the street had built to protect their
sidewalks, as they say, from being wssheo
into the river. A great deal OF
amusement was derived from this case BY
audience that was In the court room
from the fact that the defend
ant, after having tried the patience
OF three we'll known legal lights
Of the city, decided they were
too slow, and hence conducted his own
case. He was very earnest In his ma inner,
and at times very sharply cross questioned
the attorneys for the complainant, as well
as their witnesses.
The plaintiff a years ago bought the
property on which he now lives, ana, as IL
is near the river and fats in South ProviT
great expense 10 build pulkhead
and put IN concrete culverts to
provide for nnning wafer. Nine years
ago the respondent bought property to
one side of he east end OF the street ana
in order to prevent the water from flowing
| OF the bulkhead and also the concrete
| cutters for dit. nee of 25 feet from the
| bulkhead. lie Gains the street is COM
mon dump for pc pie from all parts OF
| the city.
John f. Lonsd;le sd Lorin NJ. Cook
| were attorneys for the complainant. The
court held the case for advisement.
The case of James McVicker W.
| Thomas McVicker was heard on excep-
tions to masters report az passed on by
| the court.
The license commissioners of Cumber-
land were brought before this court on
complaint OF the II. /. Perkins Horse Shoe
Works for having granted license to one
Edward Hogan, whose place in Valley
| Falls is on property, the majority OF the
land around which is owned by this cor
poratiou.
the case of William B. Beach vs.. George
II. Bullock ct al, sustaining the demurrer
filed by the defendant. This was Q
case in which an effort was made
by bill in equity to- enforoe
lien on property for money loaned to
keep up and improve 1t and Tor which the
plaintiff, who loaned the money, was to bs
repaid from the estate OF the owner
after his decease. The latter made
one will leaving the property on
which the money was advanced
to him to the complainant. Afterward he
| made anOtner Will pLONiuihs ioN sno VAC
posaf of his estate. The Court are OF the
opinion that the lien asked for can
not be enforced against the tesla
tors property and the only remedy
for the complainant would be th'
bringing of an action to compel the de'
visee under the second Will for specins
performance of contract, and to have {
trust on the property declared in his IA
vor, and even then the estate would p<
subject 10 other debts of the deceased.
There was practically no business tran
, supreme Court today. Cases on the cal
endar, with one exception, were contin
ued by agreement Of counsel. John II
1 Pray, Sons & Co., Boston, were given Jud 8
/ ment against Thomas IL. Browneli OF thi
o city for balance due on bill Tor ssie .
= carpets. mattings, and draperies, with in
terest amounting in all to $274.6!. III
v defendant made no appearance aud II. w
. Burbank represented the plaintiffs.