The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-02-27
HEARD IN COURT.
Continued From Page ].
Charlotte, as she saw his body
Brought before her on shutter,
Ifka "a wall ponductel lady.
Went on cutting bread and butter"

Went on cutting bread and butter"
Then the jury's attention was called 10
Nelson's denial OF having the
gold in his possession. Nelson
testified that he told the detective
that he had no stolen gold. "But, sala
the Attorney General, "1 Nelson had
been an honest man would he not have
said, Here is the gold. ! got IL from
Wallace, but thought he was an honest
man."
"But, no, he did not say this. Nelson
said to Parker, Il have no stolen gold.
Men in supreme moments of thelr
lives don't stop TO weigh adjectiyes or
consider grammatical constructions.
The court at this point took Its noon
recess and at the afternoon session, aiter
Judge Wilbur's charge, the case was gwen
TO the consideration OF the jury.
Appellate Court
The East Providence tax dispute came
before the appellate division OF the
Supreme Court this morning on the com
plainants' exceptions to the respondents
answers to the bill. The matter has al
ready been heard on a demurrer TO the
bill, which the court overruled.
The answer TO the complainants bill
denies that no proper notice was given of
the meeting of the tax assessors under
Section 6, Chapter 46 of the public stat
utes, but that the law was duly complied
with, and that the property OF the Gros-
venordale company was not taxed be-
cause the respondents believed
that the property was exempted
from assessment by the town
The complainant's exceptions set forth
that the respondents have not set forth
what notice was given, but have simply
said that due notice was given, which is
merely conclusion OF law, and
that the respondents have not
stated in what manner ard
form the Grosvenordale property
was exempted, but have simply said that
the Grosverdale property was properly
exempted, which is also a conclusion oi
law, solely. Stephen A. Cooke, for the
respondents, urged that il was not neces-
sary 10 set forth in answer the specific acts
done by the assessors or their reason fol
acting il it was alleged that they acted
in good faith. The court, however seemed
to be of the opinion that exceptions to in
sufficiency of the respondents answers
would not be valid if the respon-
dents had simply traversed the
Dill, Dut Slnce tney nau gone DeyOHu lnls
aud set up their defence in part they
should have been more specific. Bassett
& Mitchell appeared for the complainant
and Cooke & Angel and Il. p. Allen fol
the respondents.
Also the following were heard:
II. w. 4 w. III. Greene VS.. James
Roomian. Plaintiffs petition for a new
trial denied and dismissed.
William p. Moroney. petitioner for wri
OF certiorari, VS.. City Council of Pawtuck
ct. Heard on motion to quash on &C.
count of insufficiency of parties. Tho
| Cvurt orders notice to be given b,
publ ion to all the parties anc
assigne. ehe case for March /. Z. Il. Cor.
sicn foi complainant; T. p. Barnefield fol
fssr"ndtnts.
j. Euaen Littlefield VS.. Leander A. Bal
| ct. al. Heard on demurrer to the bill
| The question which is to be determined
| in this case is what effect is tc
be given to a claim for jury trial, made
after decision i'm the district court by two
| of three defendants as to a judgment oI
! the district court against the third de-
| fendant. The plaintiff claims
that the appeal takes the whole
case out of the district court
and that whatever judgment is to be
binding in the case thereafter must be
rendred by the common pleas division.
Charles Acton Ives for plaintiff; w. p,
Sheffield for defendant.