The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-05-06
Applications Granted in the
Court This Morning.
Beginning Of a Suit to Recover DAM
ages From a Railroad Company.
A $4,000 Suit for the Alienation Of n
Wife's Affections

The trial Of the suit of Frank p. Gram
dali against the New York, New Haven &
Hartford Railroad Company, for s30, 200,
was begun before Judge Wilbur this
morning. The plaintiff alleges that
in December, 1898, he was in the
employ of the defendant corpora
tion and in charge of a train
that left this city for Hope. That when
the train arrived at Pontiac he, pursuant
to instructions from the station agent,
side tracked his train in order TO let a
train pass by on the main track. When
the train OF which Crandall had
charge had clear road, he
TO start up his train. Before he could get
on the platform of one of the cars he
train started and he was crushed between
had several ribs broken and
received other serious injuries from
which he is not likely to recover. The
plaintiff also states that he lid not know
of the position OF the pole az this was he
first time he had ever been at this place
on the road.
After counsel for the plaintiff has
stated his case to the jury the court
grants request for view Of the premises
and the jury leave by special train for
Pontiac. On their return, at 2 p. M, tho
trial OF the case is resumed.
ID. s. d. w. Q. Baker for the plaintiff
and Frank S. Arnold for the defendant.
Before Judge Rogers this morning was
begun the oft-tried suit OF Albert +. War
rem VS.. Arthur Il. Humes. The plaintiff
claims that the defendant alienated
the affections OF his wife, and
claims 5000 for the loss sustained
by him. According to the testimony OF
Warren, Humes took away the wife in an
express wagon and also took a lot of the
plaintiffs furniture.
Williams and Tower are the attorneys
for the plaintiff and Page * Owen appear
for the defendants.
Appellate Division.
Amelia Dean, ct al. VS.. Edward Hixon,
exr. This case was heard on demurrer to
the bill of complainant asking that the
provisions OF the will of Thomas
Hixon, deceased, be carried out and
an accounting had of the rents
profits and expenses of the estate left by
Hixon. The demurrer was granted, as
was also leave to amend the bill.
Eben Taylor, collector, VS.. Narragansett
Pier Co. Heard on demurrer
George K. Handy VS.. Edwin nj. Wal
dron. Petition for a new trial on the
ground that the verdict was against the
evidence.
In the case of Charles w. White VS..
Marilla Eddy, an appeal from the District
Court of this city, an opinion was handed
down today denying and dismissing the
appeal.
A large number of divorce cases were
heard today by the judges as follows:
Before Z. j. Matteson:
Catherine Foran VS.. Martin Foran.
Dcsertion for II years. Both parties are
residents Of Pawtucket.
Before Stiness j.:
Nahum l.. VS.. Flora l.. Willard. De-
sertiop. Granted nisi.
Eliza A. Westland VS.. Charles A. West
land. Petition allowed to amend petit
tion as TO cate of marriage.
Eliza Brandt VS.. William Brandt. Nom
support
Dora S. Steere VS.. Francis II. Steere.
Desertion.
Before Tillinghast, j.:
Leander BoHrdman vs. Marinda Board
man. Dpsertion and adultery.
John Walder VS.. Clara Walker. Deser-
tion.
Sarah A. Gibson VS.. James A. Gibson.
Drunkenness and non-support.
The only civil case disposed of in the
District Court today was that of B. Bern
stein VS.. Fidler Il Bander. Decision was
for the plaintiff for s13l and costs.
Stiness, j.:
Samuel b. Clifford VS.. Theodore Clifford.
Desertion.
Lydia b. Ralph VS.. Perry Ralph. Deser-
tion.
Tilinghast, j.:
Eunice p. Kraft VS.. Frank Kraft. Deser-
tion and nOn-suDpOrt.