The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-06-05
AN INTRICATE CASE
Heard in Appellate Division Of Su-
preme Court This Morning.
Some Very Conflicting Testimony In
Regard TO a Contract.

motion Of the plaintiffs counsel in tho case Of
John A. Cross vs.. Brown. Steoso g. Clarke.
Riverside and Oswego Mills ana others, alleged
trustees. for the new trial.
This case has boon a long time in litigation,
having been begun in August, 1882 and the
points involved are Of an intricate nature,
tho rights of tho plaintiff who attached GER
tam wool In the hands of tho Riverside az Os'
wego mills. and later in the hands OF the as
signees Of the said Riverside and Oswego mills
and Of other parties being considerably mixed
up.
The case was heard in the common pleas
division of the court by Judge Rogers who tho
plaintiff contends erred in discharging the
assignee OF the Riverside and Oswego mills in
discharging tho aforonamcd mills, and the
Wanskuck Company in the admission Of sup
Elemental afiidavits OF January "a. 1894; In
denial of plaintiffs motion 70 suppress and
strike out positions of the affday.ts Of the
alleged trustees in tho admission Of King
and OF Bullens and Sawyer, as adverse claim
ants and parties in refusal to hear testimony
under plaintiffs so-called allegations in denial
OF plaintiffs motion TO reopen case, and 10
join prior attaching creditors. and In ruling
and deciding that the Riverside and Oswege
mills and the Wanskuck Company were not
trustees in this action.
The attorneys for the defendants. who are
William {. Baker, for Wanskuck Company,
Robert W. Burbank. for tho Riverside and
Oswego mills, William Y. Rocker, for as
signees Of the Riverside and Oswego mills,
and John Q. Coombs and Charles ii. Hanson
for adverse claimants, answer all OF these CON
tentions on the part OF the plaintiff in a brief
Of 8s pages. James Tillinghast Is attorney
for the plaintiff.
MONEY WILL GO TO HEIRS.
Tn court handed down a rescript in the
Of Warren Institution for Savings
James A. Fogarty, ct al. This case was heard
some weeks ago to ascertain whether a sum
of money amounting to about 5000 was TO DO
paid 10 Rev. Father Fogarty, who is parish
priest of the Catholic Church in Warren, as
executor of the last will and testament of
James Feeney, OF 10 the administrator on the
estate Of Ann Feeney, who died few weeks
after her husband. The money in question
will now go TO the heirs-at-law of Mrs. Feeney.
The roscript is as follows:
"We think that the deposit in the Warren
Institution for Savings from and after July 8,
1876, when the order was given by Ann Feeney
to add her husbands name William Feeney to
HcIH, Do ulht ~ sbanu IN tne names Of
both, must be regarded as having been the
joint property Of Ann and William. This be-
ing SOL follows that as Ann survived william,
tho fund on mis- death became hers. and did
not pass under williams will. The respond
ent. William Grant, as administrator of the
estate of Ann. Is therefore entitled TO the
fund"
DRY GOODS DEALERS TROUBLES.
In the cases brought by l.. d. Newell &
Son, against Thomas O'Gornan, the court
rendered its decision this morning. These
cases arose from the joint occupancy OF a
building by the parties named, and the main
points ip tho opinion arc as follows The
court think complainant is entitled to the in
junction prayed for, as TO the elevator.
Although the of same was not specifi
cally reserved In the lease to the respondent.
II IL evident that IL was not included in the
portion OF the store covered by the lease, and
hence II was in fact reserved. The reserva.
tion in regard 10 ingress and egress is held TO
refer not only 10 stairways, but TO the eleva-
tor. As TO the obstruction of tho bargain
counter, the court is of opinion that the
present arrangement IL in violation of the
lease, and If the placing of goods on the radi-
ator materially obstructs the passage to the |
basement IL is in violation of tho lease.
though tho testimony submitted is held not |
TO be clear. The sale of millinery velvets and |
fur trimmings is held not TO be contrary to |
the provisions Of the lease such articles are |
sold in dry goods stores. In regard |
to signs, the opinion is that the agreement has |
not been violated except in the single in. |
stance Of the sign relating to the opening of |
the store.
COMMON PLEAS DIVISION
Before Judge Wilbur this morning was be.
gun the trial Of the suit Of Anscl Bourne, a |
carpenter and builder. against Mrs. Hannah b. |
Wall, for the recovery of s267 for materials
furnished for "a house built by tho plaintiff
FOR the defendant in Cranston. Mr. Bourne
testified that he agreed to build a. house for
Mrs. Wall by tho day. she 10 give him tho
money for materials used in the construction
of the house, IL being understood the mate
rials used were to be charged him. He also
stated that Mrs. Wall moved into the house,
and after doing expressed herself as well
satisfied with it, and promised to pay the
bills remaining unpaid but whom he asked
her to do so, she said she was sick, and aftor
her recovery she would have to raise tho
money by , mortgage That the defendant
nc grew tired of the delay and brought suit
against Mrs. Wall. Then TO his surprise nc
ound that the ilattor expressed dissatisfac-
ion with tho work done and materials used
N the house. Tho defendant on tho witness
tand told a story that varied widely from that
Il the plaintiff. She testified that Bourne
agreed TO build tho house in question for
$500, or at tho highest figure $3.50. That the
oh was to be a hrst-class one in every re-
pect. That she has already paid to the plain
iff over SlG0o. that instead OF the house being
veil built tho roof is poorly constructed
hat tho SHOWS and rains of winter, and tho
orrd sanbeams Of summer. enter through il
That long before the bringing Of
his suit, the defendant stopped the plain
IFS mon from doing work improperly on
he house, and she never expressed herself
atisfied with tho Job.
George I. Brown is attorney for tho plaintiff
nd u. W. Fink. represents the defendant.
The last will and testament Of Ann Scott
)imond, deceased, was formally approved by
jury In this division this morning, Francis
T. DimOnd. who appealpl from tho decis{,,, |