The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-11-14
THE POMROY SUIT.
A Number of Prominent Persons
Testify in Behalf OF the City.

The evidence in behalf OF the plaintiffs
in the suit OF Gorham =. Pomroy aud
others VS.. the city treasurer OF this city
was all I'm this forenoon, and Assistant
City Solicitor Bske made the opening
address 10 the jury in behalf OF the de-
fendant. MIR. Baker, in his remarks, sald
that this was the first case OF the KIND
that had been brought against the city,
and evidence would be introduced 10
show what the city had done for the
plaintiffs and other coal dealers In the
harbor, also for the grain and In her
dealers and all engaged i'm the bringing OF
heavy cargoes into the harbor.
He gave also n brief account OF the tes-
timony IL was intended To introduce IN
contradiction OF the evidence introduced
by the plaintiff and he said that HIS wit
nesses would prove the city was in no
way responsible for tho damage the plain
tihs claim TO have sustained.
There were a number OF important wit
nesses present in behalf OF the defendant,
including City Engineer Shedd, Superin-
tendent of Public Works Smith and John
A. Coleman, Mr.. smiths predecessor, and
Henry 9. Clark.
Ex-City Engineer Gray was a witness
for the plaintiffs. In the evidence intro
duced by the latter was a petition asking
the City Counci to give them the rellet
now sued for. The endorsement on the
petition showed that the petition had
been introduced IN the Common Councll
In 1892 and that the petitioners were Civ
en- leave TO withdraw in 1894.
VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
The trial OF the suit OF Emanuel Veta
against joaquin Denasclmento was COM
pleted with the charge OF Judge Rogers
10 the jury this morning. The trial OF
the case, which was brought to recover
1921, was begun Tuesday morning and
the jury took the case about 1890 O'Clock.
The jury, after about two hours delib-
Grafton, brought in n verdict in favor OF
the plaintiff for the full amount OF his
claim.
DISTRICT COURT CASES
There were a number OF civil cases
disposed of in the District Court TO-DAY
by Judge Sweetlsnd and Associate Judge
Reuckert.
Before tho latter was tried the snit OF
i. l.. Logee, a manufacturer OF badges,
against Samuel j. Powell, to recover s3S
due on a promissorY note. The defend
ant had quite a number OF claims against
the plaintiff that be endeayorod TO have
set off against the note. He was at one
time IN Mr.. Logee's employ and sold
badges for him at the recent Knights
Templsr -encampment in Boston. Powell
claimed he sold the badges on commits
sion and that the plaintiff still owed him
the commission. The latter swore that
the badges were sold TO Powell, he buy
ing them at ISL. 10 a piece, and selling
them for 81. 25.
The defendant wanted an allowance
made for suppers furnished the plaintiff
and work done on the %latter's furnace
Judge Reuckert gave judgment for the
plaintiff for S37. 70.
rhe other cases disposed OF were as
follows:
Leopold Massell Va. The Protective Mu-
tual Fire Insurance Company. Decision
for the plaintiff for S2C0,
Elizabeth Mitchell 50. RI. L. Battell. De-
cision Tor plaintiff for $3.50 int costs.
Cooper * Sisson VS.. George n. Amman.
Decision for the defendant for s63. IL
Edward H.. Capron VS.. Jenkin Jones.
Decision for the plaintiff for s47 and costs.
Hugh O'Donuell vs.. Julia Ford. Decis-
ion for plaintiff for $40 and costs.
Christina Desmond VS.. Angelo De sioux.
Decision for plaintiff for IS and costs.
Ellen j. Burdick VS. S. j. * X. j. Reeves.
Decision for plaintiff for possession and
costs.