The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-02-11
Trials Continued to Amend
Declarations.
Suit of Albert Beers, d
Against Eagle Mills Settled.
Trial of the Healey Suit Ended.
The Charge a Long One.

THIS claim that Mrs. McCue, Nhlle WAlk-
ing along Westminster street on the night
Of December 2, 1893, fell over an obstruc-
ton that was placed there and sustained
severe injuries including a broken nose.
The mount sued for was 5000. 1t was
found. however, that a demurrer, which
has been filed in the case, had not teen
disposed of, SO the hearing was set down
for the 18th inst.
ii. j. Dubois was counsel for the plain
tiffs and the city was represented by City
Solicitor Colwell.
TRIAL OF THE AsE DELAYED.
At the conclusion of Judge Rogers
charge in the railroad case the trial of
the suit of George p. Willis against Frank
&. Angel, own treasurer OF the town oil
North Providence, to recover for services
as police constable for the town named
took place.
The first witness called by Attorney 2.
II. Quinn in behalf of the plaintiff was
Town Clerk Angel of North Providence.
The first question put TO the witness
concerned the appointment OF the plain
tiff as police constab bic by theTown Coun-
Gil. W. II. Tanner, one OF the counsel
for the defendant, claimed that the ec'
ton of the Town Council could not be
inquired into as the plaintiff had not
pleaded the same. Mr.. Tanner offered a
number of les in support OF his
contention. Mr.. Quinn contended That
none of the cases cited was Rhode Island
csses, and that he was entitled TO prove
by the Council clerk that his client had a,
claim against the town.
Judge Rogers, after carefully examining
the authorities submitted by Mr.. Tanner,
gave Mr.. Quinn permission to amend his
declaration ana the case was taken from
the jury. James &. Collins, Jr., is associ-
ated with Mr.. Tame in the case.
GIVEN LEAVE TO AMEND DECLARATION.
In the case of George Davis VS.. X. V.
Slade, e%xecutrix of the estate OF George
II. Slade, this morning, Mr.. Hahn, coun-
sci for the plaintiff, asked leave to amend
his declarati on, the latter alleging that
the defendant had neglected 10 put
guards around an elevator well and the
testimony for the plaintiff showing there
were guards, but tfat someone had left
them open. The motion was granted.
SATISFACTORILY ErTLED.
One of tue cases on the calendar OF the
common pleas division OF the Supreme
Court today was that Of Albert Beers.
administrator on the estate of Nelson
Waterman, against the Eagle mills OF
Woonsocket. The case was passed and
the announcement maize by counsel for the
plaintiff afterward that a very satisfac-
tory settlement had been made.
Nelson Waterman, on the I'd day of
March, 1894. was employed in the dye
house at the Eagle mills IN Woonso ket,
and while going along a slippery plat
form fell into a vat OF boiling hot water
ana was scalded TO death. In front OF the
vat was q small guard, about a foot high,
and generally in the vat there were racks
but on the day of the accident they had
been taken out; hsd these racks been i'm
~ fs ,rnbo hlo that Nafarpnoni "a Iifa unnlI
have been saved. The latter was a wild
over and left a mother and one daughter.
Mr.. Beers, the administrator en- the
estate of the deceased, and through
Joseph Osfield, Jr. of Pawtucket, brought
suit against the Eagle Mills. w. q. Reel
ker represented the defendants.
JURY CONSIDERING THE CASE.
Judge Rogers began bis charge to the
jury in The case of Healy against the New
York, New Haven d Hartford Railroad
this morning. AID as the case had been a
long one aud some unusual points having
been raised, his honor's charge was a
lengthy one. A large number Of special
findings, about u. were submitted to
the jury fer its decision.
This suit was brought by the pain
tiff against the defendant company
to recover for injuries to one OF his
hands received whlle employed as a
brakeman coupling cars, and also for
other injuries received in a collision sew
eral months after the first accident. The
defendant company claimed that il was
not responsible for either accident and
that the plaintiff had signed a release of
all claims against 1t. The plaintiff claim
Cd that he could not read ana did not
sign any p per releasing the company
from any claims no might have against
it, on account of the injuries he had re-
ceiveQ.