The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-05-01
TENANTS DISAGREE.
for an Injunction by Wire
Manufacturers.
Litigation Over Pier Property--Bill Of Par
iiculars Is Denied.

A long hearing was had today on the
application of the Nelson Seamless Wire
Company for an injunction against +. A.
Chase tS Company to restrain The latter
from using a device known as trolley
TO the injury OF the plaintiff company.
The complainants have lease OF second
floor OF the building owned by the Sarah
B. Eaton heirs at the corner OF Pine and
Eddy streets and the respondents have a
lease of he first fioor OF the same build
ing. The former are engaged In making
tools preparatory to the beginning OF the
Manufacture of seamless wire under pat,
ents they have secured snd the latter are
manufacturers of mill supplies.
IL is claimed that the trolley COM
pIained ofis attached tc the main beam OF
the floor under the second story and the
use OF il Jars the delicate machinery of
the complainants' shop and prevents
them from conducting their business OF
manufacturing.
The respondents' claim that the device
used by them and. comp aimed OF Is neces-
sary to the carrying on OF their business
and does not necessarily interfere with
the conduct of the complainants' affair.
Chief Justice Matteson and Justices
Stiness and Tillinghast have viewed the
premises since the preliminary hearing OF
the case by Justice lillinghast on the 18th
ultimo.
Amasa Eaton is counsel for the COM
DlAlnantS anu van OlyCk az
represent the respondents.
A hearing was had in the same court
today on demurrer to the bill IN equity
brought ty Louis Sherry against Wake
field Institution for Savings 20 compel
the latter TO cancel a mortgage OF record.
The defendant contends that the plaintih
has an adequate remedy at law and that
Earle, who formerly owned the land on
which the mortgage is, should be made
party TO the bill.
Sherry, the plaintiff, bought of one
Earle a. part of some land at Narragansett
Pier, on which there was mortgage OF
S3s, 600 held by Ann Hazard. The under
standing. il is claimed, was that Sherry
was TO pay the proportionate part OF the
mortgage on the whole that might be
claim on his land. lie gave a mortga &c
deed back TO Earle and the property even
tuslly came into the possession of the de-
fendant. The plaintiff contends that
Earle assumed the payment of interest on
the Anne Hazard mortgage and- also The
rayment OF same, and that the note OF
Sherry TO Earle for S25, 900 clearly proves
this. The respondent claims that the
bill really asks for the refoi ing OF the
mortgage of Sherry to Earle.
A. B. Crafts for complainant and James
Tillinghast for the respondent.
BILL OF PARTIcLARs DENIED.
In rescrlpI niCu Oy hlr. JUSTICE iii
inghast who heard last Saturday defend
ants motion for hill of particulars in the
case of Richard Butler VS.. New Enlgand
Elcetrolytic Company his honor denied
the motion holding that the declaration
is so explicit that bill OF particulars
could hardly be more than a repetition
of the allegations contained in the decla-
ration.
The plaintiff is oeeking to recover dam
ages TO his business as leather manu-
facturer in Central Falls by the defendant
company permitting various kinds of
acids to ron into his wells.