The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-01-29
Bristol Water Works Case
Heard on Demurrer.
Suit to Try the Title to Land
on the Old Canal.
A Dispute Over a LOan--Other Mat
tiers in Court Today.

A hearing was had in the appellate division
OF the Supreme Court this morning on the de-
murrer OF the respondent n the bill OF com.
plant brought by the town OF Bristol against
tho Bristol and Warren Water Works ct al.
The bill alleges that in J~anusry. 1852, the
town Of Bristol entered in a contract with
George II. Norman to furnish a water supply.
The compliments, by the terms OF the con-
tract entered into between tho parties, might
purchase the water works after 10 years, and
within Is years.
The respondents, in behalf OF their demurrer
TO the compliments bin, contended that the
bill in paragraph five alleges that George II.
Norman has conveyed all his right, title aud
interest in the premises 10 the respondent,
the Bristol ana Warren Water Works, and
therefore the relief prayed at the end OF the
bill against the defendants, "either or both
Of them." is wrongfully prayed, and that the
demurrer Of tho respondent, George II. Nor
man. should lie sustained.
On behalf OF the demurrer OF the Bristol and
Warren Water Works " was argued, first, that
the contract is ono 10 convey nj a price to he
agreed upon or to 10 fixed by arbitrators;
second. that the court cannot substitute a
price, either directly nor through a master:
third. that bill contains no averipent that
complainant hes appointed the arbitrator
provided for in said contracts; fourth, that
the bill does not contain an averment that
the appointments OF an arbitrator has been
made by il as provided for in said contract.
and communicated such appointment TO this
respondent; fifth, that no averment is made
in the bill that the complainant is willing or
is able to pay the price that may be fixed
upon by arbitrators provided for in the con-
tract. or that IL has the legal power either by
loan or taxation TO raise the amount Of the
price SO TO be fixed by said a-bitrators.
Ii is also argrad that the laws OF the State
do not provide for the payment Of any sum
greater than S200.0O0, even If the water works
were worth a great deal more. and should the
arbitrators award less than 500. 00O the re-
spondent woild have no enforceable claim
against the town. Finally, IL is claimed oy
the respondents that the bill OF complainants
is an attempt by a decree in equity to enlarge
the powers given TO the complainant by chap
ter 1880, and 10 remove the restrictions i'm
posed by that statute, and that this is n flag
for the Legislature, not the court, 10 do.
Counsel for the complainants contend that
in regard TO the main demurrer, that the
court cannot either directly or indirectly fix
the price for the purchase OF the works, the
court has such right after the refusal of the
-pactles TO agree on a price. or 10 appoint ar
bitrators: that as TO the second point made
that the vote of the town was a practical de-
termination to arbitrate, and that the defend
ant notified tho complainants that il would be
OF no use 20 appoint arbitrator; that IL was
not necessary 10 aver in the bill OF complaint
that the town is willing TO arbitrate, and that
the tow is perfectly responsible for any sum
offered in payment for the work. and could be
made to pay such sum as might be agreed
upon.
The town, in May. 1886. voted to purchase
the water works, and the company, the COIN
plainants claim, has refused TO agree upon
any price, and that If the court does not
grant the compliments the relief asked for,
the defendant company will have an exclusive
franch'se Cor 20 years.
Comstock & Gardner represent the COM
plainants and b. NJ. Bosworth and Arnold
Green tho respondents.
Another case heard in this division was
that Of Margaret X. Mccormick ct al. W..
Edwin +. Dawley ct al. This was an action
OF tresspass. The claim made was that the
plaintiffs, who are the heirs Of the late John
b. HeHnessey, i4 1879 erected Al
middle OF the canal. opposite the Hennessoy
building on Canal street. and that the defend
ants drove certain posts into the canal under
the fence put up by the plaintiffs. The action
Is really brought 10 determine the title to the
land in the canal, as the fence was put up by
Thomas b. Mccormick after the death OF Mr..
Hennessey in 1889, under the claim that tho
land enclosed belonged 90 the Hennessey
estate. In January, lS9j, the posts referred
TO were put in by the defendants.
James Conlin, the present manager OF tho
Hennessey property, testified that when the
fence was erected, Mr.. Mccormick had told
him tho property enclosed belonged to thu
Hennessey estate. John Butler, who built the
fence for the plaintiffs, testified IL cost so.
The defendants deny that they have tres
passed on any property % the plaintiffs, and
also dony the title Of the latter TO the land in
question.
7. J. Mccarthy and william II. Greene rep
resent tho plaintiffs. ana J. NJ. Ripley, Henry
W. Hayes and John HenshaH the defendants.
There are many parties 10 claim a title TO
tho land in tho canal, including tho city OF
Providence and the New York, New Haven n
Hartford Railroad Company.
COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.
Before Judge Rogers and a jury was tried
the suit OF Frank Parille against Antonio
Parille and Alver.o hi ,ci TO recover n loan OF
500. The plaintiff claims to have loaned
Parille Sl00. and tn dofordint, Ricti, testi-
fed the money was loaned 60 him, the com
plnnant only going surety FOR MIN. The de-
~fendant. Parille, has money, and the other
defendant none. hence tho dosiro TO Bx the
debt upon Parille. Though the p~iaintin and
one OF the defendant have the same family
name. they arc not closely related 30 each
other.
c. NJ. Lee appeared for tho plaintiff and X.
". burbank Tor tho deIondant