The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-03-05
Rescript in Favor Of the Ex-
Tax Assessor.
Proceeding Against Him Illegal and
Evidence Insufficient.
Cases Heard in Appellate and Common
Pleas Divisions.

The following rescript has been handed
down In the petition of William +. Ma
roney for "A writ of certiorari 10 review
the actions of the City Council OF Paw
tucket whereby the petitioner was re-
moved from his Office as tax collector;
although notice was given TO the petit
tioner of the taking OF the testimony be-
fore the committee OF the City Council
appointed for that purpose, the record
does not disclose any notice to him
of the proceeding before the Coun-
Gil for bis removal from Office,
so that he could be heard on the question
OF his removal. Without such opportuni-
ty to be heard the proceeding was not
such trial as is contemplated by clause
z OF the Charter of Pawtucket. For this
reason we are OF the opinion that the pro-
ceeding must be quashed.
"We have no statute modifying the
common law procedure on certiorari. At
common law the writ OF certiorari brings
up for review nothing except the record
proper OF the proceeding, Of which the
evidence before the tribunal below,
strictly speaking, forms no part, and
which it is, therefore, under no obliga-
tion TO send up hs a part OF the record.
Hannibal q st. Joseph X. II. Co. vs. State
Board of Equalization, "a, Mo-, 294, ,3OS;
People VS.. Board of Delegates of the
San Francisco Fire Department, Ia, CAL,
479; Wilmington >. s. Co. VS.. Haas, 20,
Art Rep. So. In the present instance
the report of the testimony before the
City Council has been sent up as a part OF
the record. While ii is not our province
to review on certiorari findings OF fact, 1t
may not be improper for us 10 suggest
that an examination of the testimony
shows that the alleged misconduct OF the
petitioner related to transactions which
occurred prior TO his present term OF
office, and. moreover, that IL docs
not appear by any competent evidence
that there was any connection between
such alleged misconduct and the action
OF the petitioner in his office as assessor"
Heard in Appellate Court.
Before the Appellate Court today the
case of Harris w. Brown, assignee OF
william II. Place, against Levi b. Place
was heard and held for advisement. This
is a bill in equity, which alleges that
William II. Place made an
assignment for the benefit Of
his creditors to Arba j. Place
on March IA, 1893. In October, 1894, the
plainant was appointed as assignee in
place OF Arba j. Place. Prior to this
time ON the 9th OF February, 1898,
William II. Place, being then insolvent.
made deed of assignment TO his father,
the respondent in the case. He also
mortgaged all his personal property
to Levi b. Place. 1t is further
alleged that certain mortgages
L. Ls.L A.L
been assigned to Abner j. Place, the
brother of the assignor. The question
brought before the court for determine
tion is: Did the respondent have reason
able cause to believe that his son was insol-
ent when he received the assignment OF
his son? 1t is set forth in reply that
for some years prior to the assignme
William II. Place had been doing black
smithing business In the village of jericho
and the respondent loaned his son money
to buy real estate and carry on business.
Finally IL was deemed advisable
to have an adjustment of the relations be-
tween father and son and the transfer of
the property was made. The respondent
AYERS that he had no knowledge OF his
sons insolvency at the time OF the trans
fer. X. w. Burbank appeared for the
Dialutius thd -. W. n. hiiCh iOI tho uo-
fcndnn..
Also before the appellate division:
Oscar +. Lee VS.. Amanda NJ. +. Brayton.
Heard on respondents exceptions to mas
ter's report. w. r.. Peirce for the plain
tiff; Samuel Norris for the respondent.
suit for An Engine.
Before Mr.. Justice Rogers today the suit
of Joseph Provencher against Joseph
Goodhue, appellant, Is on trial. II is an
appeal from the lower court, and is an
action to recover s266.35, the price
OF a marine engine sold to the respondent
for use on pleasure boat. The respon-
dent claims that the engine was absolutely
worthless. II. S. Babcock appears for the
plaintiff and j. Il. Goldsworthy for the
defendant.
Court Calendar for March q.
The calendar of the Supreme Court for
Wednesday Is as follows:
Common Pleas Division)
1886. r. Isaac q Brother VS.. George w.
Milkman. Attorneys-A. s. Johnston for
plaintiff; S. T. Douglas for defendant.
1924. Marietta w. Cooke ct al. VS.. All
Saints Memorial Church. Attorneys
Edwards & Angel for plaintiff; w. A.
Morgan and J. Henshaw for defendant.
1895. w. Il. Haskins VS.. John II. Row.
ley. Attorneys-Cook & Angel for
plaintiff; j. Harris for defendant.
appellate Division
No assignments.