The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-10-31
Well Known Attorneys Sue
a Newspaper.
Claim Certain Articles Published
Damaged Their Reputation.
Interesting and Varied Testimony In
Fox Nuisance Case.


attorneys at law. against Joseph q Colburn
and others, publishers Of the Burrillvile
News-Gszette, for the recovery Of $1,000
damages for tho publication of certain alleged
ibelous articles rejecting on the public acts
OF the plaintiffs as town solicitors of the town
of Burrillville and on their professional
doings, was begun today
A number of articles from the paper named
were introduced in the plaintiffs declaration.
but particular stress was laid on the
statements in the publication that the plain
tiffs at the same time that they were the
towns attorneys. were counsel for tho New
York g. New England Railroad; one of the
articles on this point stating that none but
country lawyers could so happily combine
business of so varied q kind. aad another re-
ferring TO the firms selection town solici-
tors that the town would have the benefit OF
slick and sly attorneys in all legal business,
except actions against the railroad One OF
the other charges is that in relation TO the
Smith will case. the paper in question had
stated that while the firm was supposed TO
look out for the towns interest, still Mr.
LoveJoy. one of the members Of the firm, was
attorney Ger one, Tinkham, heir-at-law OF
Mary + Smith. who would get quite sum OF
money IL the will of said Smith woman con-
tanning bequest 70 the town was not upheld
The paper. 1t is alleged. accused the firm OF
serving at the same time three or four
masters
The alleged libelous publications were
print cd in August and December, 1898, and in
June. 1894 All OF the acts in the declaration
the defendant are accused Of doing, because
they were epvious OF the happy condition Of
mind OF the plaintiffs. ard their great pros
tarifv and honor I'm their prOfessiOn
There was much discussion ovar the plead
ings in tho case between Charles A Wilson.
attorney for the plaintiffs, and Irving Champ
lin Of counsel for the defendants The court
finally ruled that the plaintiffs must, undtr
their pleading, not only prove their damages,
but the facts set forth in tn sir declaration
The plaintiffs testify that they were hired
TO advise the town council, and to prosecute
such cases an they were instructed by IL TO
30 do
The defendants claim that the plaintiffs
were public officials. and they, the defend
ants, as publishers OF a newspaper, had the
right TO comment the public acts Of the
firm as they did
NUISANCE CASE
Before Judge Wilbur and a jury, John Fox
was tried this morning for the keeping Of an
was before His Honor and jury before
tion to answer to similar charge, and the
jury thought he was guilty, but the appellate
division has yet to say whether this verdict
will stand
The testimony of police officers and other
residents Of the city is offered on the part of
the State to prove that the defendant did sell
liquor, and Lieutenant Scott OF the Sixth Sta
tion testified that when he went to arrest
Fox, the latter said he might aswell admit he
did sell a little whiskey and offered him
drink, which the lieutenant refused
Mr. Fox's tale differed from that of the lieu
tenant. as he testified when he took the stand
that he did not say he sold liquor, but that
hv kept a little whiskey for his own use This
whiskey he kept in jug
On another point there was q difference be-
tween the testimony for the, State and that
given for the defendant Two Of the formers
witnesses testified that Mrs Fox sold them
liquor on Juno o, and that Mr. Fox lay a
lounge in the kitchen while they purchased
It, Mrs Fox swore there was no lounge in the
kitchen after April 10 Miss Nellie Fox testi-
fed ber mother had thrown IL out" in April.
and Mr. Fox swore that he had dumped the
lounge over a bank in the rear Of his house.
In his cross examination of the defendant,
the Attorney General asked him IL he made n
minute Of the lounge when he threw IL out.
"No," said Mr. Fox, 81 threw il down a
bank" MIR Fox admitted having sold liquor
during prohibition times, but said that he
had not sold any since the repeal of the pro-
hibitory amendment. Attorney General Du.
bois tried To introduce a convc ion of Fox at
the last term but as the case had gone up on
exceptions, the court would not allow him to
do so
FP. owen appeared for Fox.
APPELLATE DIVISION
James NJ. CovilIe was before this division OF
the Supreme Court y sterday afternoon 10
answer tot ho charge OF contempt of court.
Hehad not obeyed the mandate of the court.
The court said that II Mr. Brennan's client
would pay the costs OF putting tho street and
the bulkhead in the same condition IL was in
before he operated on It, he might purge
himself OF conempt, but in future he must
obey the orders OF tine court. He said this
would be done. and he went free
SUIT FOR $4,000
The trial OF the suit of Margaret Brown
against the Calendar. McAuslan a. Troup
Company for the recovery OF $40, 600 damages.
was begun before Judge Wilbur this afternoon
The plaintiff alleges that on the 25th OF
February, 1893. she was riding along Union
street in n sleigh, and that owing 70 large
quantity Of snow being carelessly and neeii.
gently piled MP in the gutter OF the street by
the employees OF the defendant company, she
was thrown out of the Sleigh and seriously
hurt
wB Tanner for plaintiff J NJ Ripley and
John Henshsw for defendants
-