Worcester morning daily spy. (Worcester, Mass.) 1888-1898, 1898-02-17
AMONG THE COURTS.
IURY-WAIVED SESSION.

JURY-WAIVED SESSION.
In the jury-waived session of the SUI
perior court before Judge Hopkins, We'd
nesday, the case of Peter Baker VS.. Da-
vid Kritchner, a bill in equity to reach
the letters patent on a plumbers tool
belonging to the respondent on account
of bill due, was completed, and deci-
sion reserved by the court. Thayer &
Cobb for the plaintiff; Paul Bronner
Charles A. Merrill for the defendant.
A hearing was held in the case of Ell
thu Chauncey ct al VS.. the town of
Leominster. The claim is for 1734 acres
of land known as the school house lot;
and the defendant alleges defective til
tie. Decision reserved by the court.
Pierce & Stiles for the plaintiff; Hamil-
ton Mayo for the defendant.
The case of Daniel Parlin VS.. p j..
O'Reilly, involving the right of way in
the rear of st. Johns cemetery, has
been transferred to the jury list. The
defendant was formerly bishop of the
Springfield diocese, and when he died
was succeeded by the present incum-
bent, Bishop T. D. Beaver Archbishop
Williams of Boston, as the executor of
the estate of the late Bishop O'Reilly,
was named as the respondent in the
suit Sullivan & O'Connell appear for
the defendant
The cases of Michael CuTan and Mi
chael Twohey VS.. Israel Rome, involv
ing the right of defendants to sewer
construction over the plaintiffs land On
Water street, are transferred to the jury
list. Sullivan & O'Connell for plaintiff;
lockwood Hoar for defendant.
The following cases are assigned for
Friday when court adjourns
2Hl0-EiOIan 6pr Grocery TTpiOn
Hjerthester. Taylor; Hopkins, Smith
& Hopkins, -Ds-B. Covers Son.
2630-Shartner VS.. Forbush. Fay;
Thayer & Rugg.
In the case of J. Everett Toombs VS..
Jenny w Toombs, a libel for divorce,
the bill was dismissed Wednesday with
out prejudice. Henry +. Harris for Ii
bellant; A. NJ Taft for libellee.
The divorce libel of Mary Horton VS..
John E. Horton is continued to March.
NJ. H. Cowden for libellant
All divorce Ghels are in order today,
and all other jury-waived and equity
cases unassigned are continued to
March. -.-
WANTS TAXES ABATED.
E. P. Pierce of Fitchburg has filed a
petition with the county commissioners,
asking for an abatement of taxes for a
client of his in Fitchburg, and the SOth
IS set as the date for the hearing, at
the Fitchburg court house.
CITY CORPORATION SUED
The Washburn Car and Wheel Com
pany of this city has brought suit in
the superior court against the corpora
ton of the city of Worcester for the as
sesSment of damages to their property
by the relocation of Grafton street, in
pursuance to vote of the city council
Dec. l6, 1895. The city charged the
plaintiffs for betterment, and the petit
ton states that they feel aggrieyed at
the assessment of damages at $490S. 81
made by the city. The papers were
served upon the city treasurer and
clerk Wednesday by Deputy Sheriff Jas.
Early, and are returnable the first Mon
day IN March. Rice, King & Rice for
the petitioner.
SUPERIOR CIVIL COURT.
Al the opening of the superior civil
court. before Judge Bond, at $50 o'clock
wednesday morning, Clerk Of the Courts
Col I. s. Johnson called the docket of
all civil cases. upon the list which have
been Enacted upon during the past year,
that they might be dismissed, unless
sufficient reason to the contrary were
SHOWN. The reading was a long pro-
ceedlng, and the following cases were
ordered dismissed by the court:
Sugden VS.. Morse; Ulmer VS.. Rawson
ct ais; Cooney VS.. Carroll; McMahon ct
AZ. VS.. Gray; Parlin VS.. O'Reilly; Har-
rlngton VS. Harrington; Loring VS.. Pub
nc Grain and Stock Exchange; Jordan
ct ais vs., King; Morse VS.. Clarey: Gro
MN VS.; Gallagher; Fox ct al VS.. Hager
ct al; Washburn and Moen Manufacture
ing Company VS.. Livingstone Cycle
Company; Damon ct al. VS.. Finley; LIE
Due VS. Duquette; Paige VS.. Nora
Priest ct al vs. Marion; Weston Lumber
Company VS.. Chamberlain ct al: Wal
lace vs. Davis; Oakdale Manufacturing
Company VS.. RUSSELL Dean VS.. Dean;
Bernheimer VS.. Metcalf; Bowers ct al.
VS. Old Colony Railroad Company.
Kelley VS.. Kelley; selectmen of North
bridge VS.. Providence and Worcester
Railroad Company; Armsby VS.. Draper;
Ruggles VS.. Gardner Gas Light Compa-
ny; Inhabitants of Athol VS. inhabitants
of Montague; Attlol VS.. Springfield; Pal
mer ct al vs.. Phelps; Woods VS..
Ahearn; Woodcock VS.. Biscoe; Whitney
vs. Webster; Weld VS.. Southbridge
Printing Company; Adams VS.. Thayer;
Beauregard VS.. Webb Granite and Con-
struction Company; Taylor VS.. Cham
berlain ct al; Verginan VS.. Morse; Ry-
an VS.. Curran ct ais; Gallup VS.. Be-
land; Start VS.. Maynard; Thompson VS..
Bennett; Hamilton VS.. Osgood; Gates
vs.. Mansfield; Boland VS., Gallup; Proctor
VS.. Whitney; Matthews vs. Young;
Thompson VS.. Clinton Wall Trunk, Com
pany: Callander, MeAustin & Troup
Company vs.. Girard ct ais. Grinnel ct
ais. VS.. Hartman: Boss ct al. VS.. Girard
ct al. Leahy VS.. Forrest ct al; Day VS.
Porter ct al; Proctor VS.. Laws; Blais-
dell VS.. Chadsey ct ais; Ballston VS..
Hubley; Thompson VS.. DugAn; Thayer
VS.. Sweet; Dixon VS.. Storms; Gladke VS.
Simons: Bonner VS.. Osselin; Cronan VS.
Patrick; Powers VS.. Mccarthy; Harring-
tor vs. Fullam: Green VS.. GAINESVILLE
Manufacturing Company; Fullam VS.
Stone; Cowell VS.. Fairbanks; Kimball VS.
Beacon Cycle Company; Hendrick vs.
brennan; Cheney VS.. Everett; Daniels
VS.. Brown; Wallace VS.. Morse; Cham
pleau VS.. Stead; Goodwin vs. Beaudry
Tool Company Clifford VS. Cain; city
of Worcester VS.. Sexton: Doyle VS.. Am
erige ct all; Lawson VS.. Cross & Co. i;
Jordan VS.. Conant, Goldsmith ct ais. VS.
Emery Peter Fay; Hill VS.. Washburn
and Moen Manufacturing Company; Col
burn VS.. Howard; Daniels VS.. Baldwin
Bros & Co.; Sibley VS.. Thompson; Pick
erin VS.. Pickerin; Demehy VS.. Mahan;
Langan VS.. Gerrity; Dyer VS.. Lawn !;
Cummings VS.. Bush; Divoll VS.. Powers
Corey VS.. Corey; Kinds VS.. Kinds; An
drews VS.. Girard, Pullman VS. Glines
Warren VS.. Hudson
The jury in the case of James Il.
Welch VS.. William Welch, both of Hol-
den, after being out all night, reported
a disagreement, and was dismissed; it
being understood that the jury were 3