The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-03-16
HEARD IN COURT.
Difficulty in Bringing AS
signed Cases TO Trial.
Another Judge May Soon Be Neces-
sary to Facilitate Matters.
Cases Before Both Common Pleas and
Appellate Divisions Today.


Appellate Divisions Today.
The trial calendar was called before
Judge Rogers in the common pleas dlvi-
sion this morning, but none OF the parties
were ready TO proceed. The Judge
thereupon took occasion TO remark
on the extreme . difficulty OF getting
cases disposed of, and stated that during
the entire week there had been but one
case brought before q jury. A dis
cussion of the matter followed, and
Attorney West stated the position of
members OF the bar. lie maintained that
the present practice of assigning four or
five cases for every trial day gave the at
torneys whose cases came at the last
part OF the days calendar
no assurance whatever that their
cases would come mp. rThey there
for did not feel justified in paying out
there was no prospect of trial. The
attorney suggested that anothe
Judge would be great help
in the disposition OF the calendar
An Action In Assumpsit.
Before Mr.. Justice Wilbur the suit of
Joseph Madden, trustee, against John c.
Knowles was tried. The action Is in as
sumpsit tor work and labor done
by the plaintiff for the defendant in
the fall of 1898, the total amount
claimed being .s947.96; Madden is
deceased, was during his life
time the owner of many houses.
Ii was in repairing and paint
ing these houses that the debt
claimed was contracted. Madden mas re-
Gently made an assig nment ana now sues
as trustee. The SUIT though nominally
brought against Knowles is defended by
his widow.
Mr.. Justice Douglas listened today to
oral testimony in the case Of Alphonse
Deslsuriers against Holmes Brothers.
This is an action to recover sum OF s7Ol 30
on a book account. A. j. Cushing for
plaintiff; X. w. Burbank for defendant.
j. Frank Read VS.. John 5. Mccarthy.
Judgement for plaintiff for s330.40 and
costs.
Frederick Jacob Andres vs. Thomas ID.
Demming. Decision for plaintiff for
S3l7.SS and costs.
Hagop Bogigian VS.. Sarkis II. Nahigian.
Allowance for deposition fees granted.
Richard Waterhouse vs.. Blackstone
Woolen Company. Motion TO certify case
TO appellate division denied.
William III. Stone vs.. Edward /. Lassell.
Motion to discharge garnishee denied.
A Question of Practice.
The case of James McGrath against
Daniel L. Hanley was brought before Mr..
Justice Rogers, principally on motion OF
the defendant for release from arrest:
Attorney Wood for the plaintiff objected
to the hearing of this motion on the
ground that it had already bsen heard in
the District Court and decided. Judge
Rogers was not certain as to the
practice OF the court in such mat
ter, and recess OF 10 minutes
was taken for consultation with
other members of the bench. On the re-
opening of the matter, the court stated
that it seemed to be the prevailing
practice to not hear motion OF
this sort second time when
it had once been adiudicated,
unless new grounds for the motion could
be produced. Attorney Hogan for the
defendant called the courts attention to
motion for release from arrest
had been denied in the District
Court and on the bringing
OF the case before the common pleas di-
vision the motion was renewed and
granted. The court in the present in
stance denied the -, motion, said
bench would again be consulted
and IL any different decision was arrived
at the defendant would be allowed to
renew his motion.
Also before Mr.. Justice Rogers
Daniel Il. Handy vs.. Frank B. Hazard.
Heard on plaintiffs motion for an order
compelling the defendant to appear and
show cause why he should not produce
certain books for the plaintiffs inspec-
tion.
Henry Cairns vs.. Myra Silverstein. De-
cision for plaintiff for $3.50 and costs.
Appellate Court
The following motions we're heard by
Chief Justice Matteson today:
Joseph T.. Hoffman VS.. Kate Hoffman.
Respondents motion for allowance de-
MED.
Mary A. Snceston VS.. Robert Sneeston.
Petitioners motion for an allowance
gtanted.
Matilda Mason VS.. Laura Wheeler, ct.
al. An opinion handed down to the
effect that the complainant is entitled to
the relief sought in the bill.
Thomas Miller vs.. Robert McCardell.
The complainants petition for prelimi-
nary injunction granted.
Henry p. Ryder VS.. james j. Ryder ct
al, Decree entered taking bill as con-
fessed.
Rcscript and Opinion.
In the appellate division ofthe Supreme
Court today a rescript was handed down
in the case of Thomas Miller VS..
Robert McCardell, to the effect that
the court is of the opinion that
tho complainant is entitled TO an APP
portionment for the rent OF the easehold
premises from the time of the election OF
the City Council to make this improve
ment, and the preliminary injunction is
granted.
In the cnse of Matilda Mason VS.. Laura
Wheeler ct al, the court is OF the opin-
ion that the residuary clause in tho
will of Mrs. Blake did not execute
the power of appointment conferred
on her by the will of Mrs. Wheeler and
that the complainant is entitled to the
relief sought by the bill.
Court Calender for March IL.
The calendar of tho Supreme Court for
Monday is as follows:
Common Pleas Div.sonD
1916. Josephine Sweeney VS.. William L.
Spencer. Attorneys-M -McGuinness q Doran
for plaintiff; Slocum a Greenough for
defendant.
1912. Morris Ksplan Va. Union RAILROAD