The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-10-10
IN court.
Right Of tho State to Claim
Jury Trial Argued.
The State House Land Question In
Appellate Division Today.
A Fill Operative Seeks Heavy Dams-
ges for Injuries Received by Him.

Before Chief Justice Matteson and JUS
tices TiIlinghast and Rogers we're heard
arguments on the exceptions taken by the
State TO the ruling OF Judge Wilbur deny
ing it's right TO jury trial in the matter
of appeals from the award OF the COM
missioners appointed TO apprsise the val
ue of land taken for the new State
House.
The opening argument in opposition to
the States right to jury trial was made
by Warren X. Perce. He contended that
the State had no right under the statutes
to Jury trial. The claim was made in
behalf OF the State OF Rhode Island in
the first place; in the second, by the
mem bers of the State House Commission
as a board, and in the third place by the
commiss toner's IN behalf OF the State. MIR.
Perce claimed that the State cannot set
off the act of one agent against another
OF its agents. IL acts by its agents, and
it's agents are itself, and all their acts are
the act OF the State ITSELF
"By the State House act. continued the
counsel. "the State House Commission se-
lects the site, the court decides the TAX
ing of the land TO be necessary, and the
board of appraisers fixes the value Of the
and taken These are all the acts OF the
State, and II cannot lie in the States
power to do an act by its agent, and ap-
peal from it own acts.
some statute. No statute in this State
gives the State House Commissioners the
right to appeal. The statute which Great
ed them expressly defines its duties, and
there is no right of a jury trial. Only
owners of land are given the right OF a
jury trial
''If the State House Commissioners
were to have this right of appeal, why
was II not expressly given them?
"It is evident that the Legislature intend
ed only so give the right Of appeal TO
those who had IL under the provisions OF
chapter 2s5. In Sutherland on statutory
construction It is laid down that where a
statute enumerstes the persons or things
affected by its provisions, there is AN i'm
piled exclusion OF others.
Mr.. Perce then dwelt upon the difficult
| ty TO be experienced in obtaining a jury
| 10 try the case, and other points suggest
| ed by the brief OF the Attorney General
| and his associate.
Arnold Greene, who represented the
State at the hearing, asked Mr.. Perce If
his contention as TO the impossibility of
| getting jury in this case would not, II
true, prevent the State from bringing any
action in its own courtsy
Mr.. Perce said not necessarily so, but
| reiterated his opinion that in such cases
as the present one 1t could not have Q
jury trial.
Amssa Eaton spoke on certain points
raised by the contention OF the State in re-
gard to the ending appeal.
In behalf of the State, Arnold Greene
argued that the only question at issue In
the exceptions was; Had the State the
right TO q jury trial as TO the amount OF
the award for land taken for State House
! purposes? "The State ~ he coDtended,
"may claim q jury trial, unless some
thing in statute 1901 expressly abrogated
the right. There is a general right OF
H. laaA ta taly stxa tDh N
| manner as this was 10 appeal. For the
conhemning power to be good IL must be
| clearly given, provision must be made for
| the payment TO the land owners whose
| estates are taken, and there must be pro-
vision from the waving of a jury trial.
"Chapter 1901 IL void unless chapter 2S5
| is pursuant to it. Now Section says
explicitly "any person or party aggrieved
! by any award of damages by said COM
| missioners Il. g. the commissioners of ap-
| prsisal appointed by the court; Chapter
| 22S5 Section 81 may claim jury trial Ii
| follows then that the State has the same
| right TO jury trial that the land owner
| has. IL is this act un der which the COM
missioners were appoint ted and by which
| the land is condemned.
The other counsel engaged in the case
| are James TillinghBst and Benjamin n.
| Lapham.
Alfred Olney VS.. John W. oldberg and
4
| partition sale; appointing Herbert Il.
| Dodge commissioner TO make the parti-
| tion and also appointing Daniel w. Frank
| guardian sd litem of the estates of Bert ba
| l.. and Ida Moore, parties 10 the proceed
| ing. The decree also directs that the
proceeds OF the partition sale shall be dis
| tributed as follows: To Alfred Olney
and Almira L. Olney, in her own right,
| one half thereof; TO John W. Goldberg
| and Ida Goldberg his wife such sum as
shall be found due her as dove from the
estate of her children, Bertha L. and Ida
| Moore, and the remainder divided into
equai parts, and paid 10 the guardian OF
said Bertha l.. and Ida Moore.
Frank L. Hinckley, who passed the
| examination recently held for admission
| to the bar, was today admitted an at
| torney to practice in all the courts OF the
| State on mot ion of Dennis III. SheehaD.
HEAVY DAMAGES WANTED.
In Judge Wilbur's court this NOR ming,
before jury, was begun the trial OF the
| suit of James Conklin against the Provi-
| dence National Worsted Mills for the re-
covery of s25, 900 damages for injuries re-
cei,ed while at work in the defendant
| company's mills in Olneyville, and which
| injuries he alleges TO be due TO the COM
psny's negligence. Conklin was employed
| to remove boxes containing wool 10 the
cerdiug room of the mill, and in order TO
10 81 IL Nhs HttetshIN W une dH
| His counsel contend that they can show
that the cable by which said eleva-
tor was run was out OF repair,
and that the plaintiff was not
furnished with as safe appliances for the
| performance of his work, as he should
have been; that when the cable OF the
elevator broke the plaintiff in the per-
| formance OF his duties was upon II with
| q heavy box, full of wool, that the eleva-
tor fell the distance OF one story, throw
| ing the box upon one of his legs. The
many injuries received by the plaintiff 1t
is claimed, were of so serious nature
that he has not since been able TO 90 any
labor whatever, nor Is il probable that
he will ever again be in condition TO
earn enough TO supply his bodily wants
and has also been put TO great expense
| for medical treatment. After the open
ing statement OF the case Is made to the
| Jury by plaintiffs counsel the jury ut
| the request OF counsel for defendant e
for view OF the premises. Cannon X
Quinn for the plaintiff; Hayes Il Hayes
for defendant.
The plaintiff introduces considerable
a