The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-02-23
HEARD IN COURT.
A $4,000 Suit for Malicious Prosecu.
tion Before Justice Rogers.

Before Mr.. Justice Rogers today the
suit Of Richard Burke and wife against
Bridget Crowley is on trial. The suit is
onelof s5OO0lfor malicious prosecution, and
dates back to the year 1899 W hen a wedd ing
occurred in the town of Johnston on the
Tuesday before Thanksgiving. The
occasion was one of general hilarity, and
during its progress Bridget Crowley
claimed to have been robbed of s135 by
Mrs. Burke. A suit III trover was first
brought, after which criminal
complaint was made and Mrs.
Burke was adjuged probably
guilty and bound over to the
grand jury where no bill was found
against her. The plaintiffs claim that the
action in the district court in holding
Mrs. Burke was based on the false state
ments of the defendant in the present
suit. q. J. West appeared for the plain
tiffs and Brennan for the defendant.
Before Mr.. Justice Douglas the suit of
Alfred Norcliffe VS.. Henry and Elizabeth
Gill was brought to trial this morning.
This is an action in assumpsit
for labor done on house in Pawtucket
for the respondents. A contract was made
which was subsequently abandoned. A
decision was rendered in favor of the
defendant. Attorneys-P. j. Quinn for
plaintiff; w. b. Tanner for defendant.
Also the motion calendar was called
and disposed of as follows:
James Croften VS.. Charles Keech. To
discharge from arrest. Decision filed de-
nying motipn.
Orrin Kline VS.. Artemus b. Drake.
Damages assessed at S67.
Hagop Bogigian VS.. sarkis III. Nahigian.
Damage assessed for s59i.40.
j. w. McCrillis VS.. William T.. Bowen.
Decision for plaintiff.
Stephen Wright, petitioners VS.. City of
Woonsocket, and Benjamin F. Harris VS..
same. Petitioners required to file further
specifications.
Margaret Donahue Va. Robert Miles.
Motion to dismiss claim for jury trial
denied.
Judge Wilbur's attention was occupied
this morning by the suit of Sirak ian,
Djismardahoss d Co. against Nahigian
Brothers on q motion Of A. II. Nahigian
to be discharged from arrest. When the
plaintiffs brought act ion against the Ma
higians, Avedis was unable to obtain
bail, and has since been in confinement.
He claims, however, that no such firm as
the Nahigian Brothers existed, and that
was In no way connected with
his brothers in a business relation.
An expert in handwriting was brought
forward to show that the books of the
plaintiffs had been changed by the inser-
tion of "Bro.'" after Nahigian in several
places. G. A. Aldrich appears for Ma
higian and Edwards 81 Angel for the
plaintiffs.
Appellate Division.
The following matters came before Mr..
Justice Stiness this morning:
John A. Collins vs.. Robert New bold, ct.
al. preliminary injunction granted en-
joining the respondent, Michael
Keer, from selling, transferring mort
gaging or in any wise encum bering
the household estate referred to in the
complainant's bill until further order of
the court.
Philip ID. Opie VS.. John Martin ct ux.
A decree pro coEfesso entered.
The East Providence tax case has been
assigned for hearing for Feb. 27, on COM
plainant's exceptions to the respond
ent's answer.
Court Calendar for Feb. %.
The calendar Of the Supreme Court for
Monday. is as follows:
81. Max Natbanson VS.. Jacob Spite ct
al. Attorneys. j. Hahn for plaintiff; I;
G. +. Salisbury for defendant.
40. William Eddy Ell al VS.. City of Prov
dence. Attorneys-C. NJ. Smith for plain
tiff; A. A. Baker for defendant.
3sls. Lydia p. Fellows VS.. Dustin ID
Wright.
30l4. David Collins VS.. james Lavell.
Attorneys-W. B. Tanner for plaintiff; !;
Page Il Owen for defendant.
20i7. Lenzen & Reuckert vs. Rudolph
G. Schultz. Attorneys--F. Reukert for
plaintiff; j. j. Hahn for defendant.
1176. John Trainor VS.. James Il. John
ston. Attorpeys-E. s. & A. 8. Hopkins
for plaintiff; German & Egan for defend
ant.
1910. Metropolis Manufacturing,Co. vs..
Charles Handler. Attorneys - q. II.
Brown for plaintiff; J. n. Hogan for de-
fondapt.
1857. Arthur p. Sumner, administrator
va. New York, Providence and Boston
Railroad Company.
1875. Loring T.. Hersey VS.. Union Rail-
road. Attorneys Edwards q Angel for
plaintiff; Bakers and s. w. X. Alien for
defendant.