The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-04-30
RAILROAD SUITS.
The Union Street Car Com
pany for $4,000.
Defense is That the Plaintiff Was
Drunk at the lime.
The N. ", N. III. a III. X. X. Company
Defendants for $4,000.

The suit of James j. Maher against the
Union Railroad Company was begun be-
lore Judge Rogers in the common pleas
division of the Supreme Court this morn
ing. Plaintiff sues for 5000 damages for
injuries received by being thrown from
an Atwells avenue car on Nov. rs, 1894.
lie testified that on the evening referred
TO he got on q car on Westminster street
to go TO his home on Cutler
street. When the car had
nearly reached Cutler street he
left his seat In the car and went to the
rear platform, on which the conductor
told him he could not remain, but must
return to the inside of the car. To
this the plaintiff replied he did not
think 1t worth while to do so
as ne would soon get off the car. The
conductor, Maher alleges, then said,
You will go into the car now or / will
throw you off" and then the conductor
took hold of him and threw him on to the
street pavements, kicking some bundles
Maher had laid on the platform off after
him. The plaintiff alleges that the
small bones in n OF his arms were
broken and a wrist injured, that a rup-
ture resulted from the injuries received
and that an injury to his spinal column
has caused him great annoyance.
Maher was at the time of the acct
dent head agent for the sale of the
Father Quinn Medical Company's reme-
dies, and received s25 per week and ex-
penses for his services to the company.
lie claims TO have been unable to do any
work since the time he was thrown from
the car. Henry f. Thompson and Charles
IL. Page are Makers attorneys, and ID. s.
d w. Z. Baker represent the railroad.
The defense is that Maher was intoxi-
Gated waep-he-got On the car, that his
hand aud arm had been previously in
lured, and that the conductor had put
him OF the car on account OF his being
drunk, and doing so used no more force
than was necessary.
Before Judge Wilbour the suit of r. j.
Whipple VS.. the N. Y, N. ii. a. II. Rail-
road Company is on trial. Whippie was
IN the employ of the defendant on the
ed day of December, 1894, as
a brakesman. He worked In the yard
near the Worcester depot and was at
the time mentioned engaged on a switch
ing engine. He u%ncoupled a car from the
engine and then started TO go up a adder
that was on the side of a freight car,
but In so doing struck q telegraph pole
that was close to the track on which the car
was and he was knocked to the ground,
though, fortunately, he did not fall
under the cars. The plaintiff claims that
as a result of his fall he received a num-
Der OF painful and permanent in
Juries. The defendant corporation denies
any liability in the matter and also allege
contributory negligence on the part of
the plaintiff. At the request of counsel
for the latter the jury will view the scene
of the accident. The amount sued for is
$4,000. Walter Is. Vincent is attorney for
the plaintiff and Frank s. Arnold for the
defendant.
Appellate Division.
A hearing on the entrance of a decree in
the case of Charlotte X. Dodge vs.. j. w.
Hogan, ct al, was heard before Chief JUS
faaA --I
day. The court took DEGREES offered by
plaintiffs and defendants and the latter
will decide on their merits.
The following order was handed down
by the court, this morning: Petitions
for divorce will be in order Tor hearing on
Monday, May 8; Tuesday, May Z; and
Wednesday, May 8. There will be a
percmptory disposition of ~uncontested
petitions for divorce on Wednesday, May
sth, aud uncontested petitions not then
disposed of will be continued to the next
term.
A rescript was also handed down in the
case OF Daniel Medberry ct al. VS.. Harriet
l.. Potter, et al.
court Calendar for Wednesday.
2o67. James Maloney vs.. N. Y. & N. T..
Railroad Company. Attorneys-G. j.
West for plaintiff; j. NJ. Ripley and }.
Henshaw for the defendants.
1897. The Home Building Company VS..
Francis Charter. A~ttorneys-T. p.
Barnefie,d for plaintiff; j.. X. Colds
worthy for the defendant.
2210. Daniel +. Jones We. Patrick
Healey. Attorneys-B. l.. Dennis for
plaintiff and Bassett a. Mitchell for de-
fendant.
21S0. John T.. Coldsworthy vs.. John
Coyle. Attorneys. Il. Goldsworthy
and Osfield and Banigan.