The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1898-10-07
COURTS
Good Progress
BY the
SUPREME BENCH
Return Day List Includes
Many Important Cases.

At the regular session of the supreme
court yesterday Judge oliver Wendell
Eolmes appeared, taking the place Of
Justice Hammond. The first case Of the
day was that Of John c. Speirs VS.. the
Union Drop Forge Company. The case
was heard on an appeal by the plain
tiff from a finding by justice of the
lower court for the defendant, on an
agreed statement Of facts. The main
question of the case was whether the
defendant has violated any contract
with the plaintiff so as to become LA
Bile to damages to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff owned a drop forge plant and
claims damages for having kept his
plant in readiness to do work for the
defendant under an agreement, where
as the defendant sent him no work, 80
that the plaintiff manufactured nothing
for the defendant The defendant claimed
that it was under no obligation to en-
ploy the plaintiff to produce any drop
forgings, that 1t did not agree to fur
nish any certain amount of work, that
the agreement was absolutely uncertain
as to any fixed amount, and that the
plaintiff never furnished any work for
the defendant, so that there would be
nothing to recover. Smith & Hopkins
for the plaintiff, Henry w. King,
Charles M. Rice for the defendants.
The second case was that of Albert
r. Tuson VS.. James Crosby ct ais. The
case is an action of contract, in which
the plaintiff seeks to recover on an in
demnity bond executed by the defend
ants. Upon the Indictment Of Perry Var.
rington, in connection with his gas ma
Massachusetts, to Providence upon the
requisition Of the governor of that
state, the plaintiff, for consideration,
became bailer for Warrington, and took
for his indemnity the bond in suit.
Thereafter Warrington made default
on his recognizance, and the common
wealth recovered judgment from the
plaintiff, satisfied in the sum of $780,
The questions raised by the excep-
tions relate to the validity of the de-
fence and the exclusion Of certain evil
dence relative to the amounts received
by Lawyer Brennan of Providence,
Yarrington's attorney, who had APP
peared as counsel for the sureties in
the bail matter. Frank p. Goulding
William c. Mellish for the plaintiffs;
John w. Corcoran, Charles r. Aldrich
for the defendants.
The two cases of the Quinsigamond
Lake Steamboat Company, one against
the Phoenix Insurance Company Of
Brooklyn, and the other against the
Phoenix Fire Insurance Company of
Hartford were next argued together.
The suits We're actions of contract to
recover insurance on property of the
plaintiff company, and the argument
was upon exceptions taken by the de-
PENDANTS to the charge of the court in
giving the case to the jury. William
A. Gle, Frank II. Kelley Herbert Par
ler for the plaintiff; Hopkins, Smith &
Hopkins for the defendants.
The case of William j. Hogg ct AL
VS.. the American Credit Indemnity
Company Of New York, was next ar
gued. according to the claim of the
plaintiffs in the case, the defendant
made to them a bond of indemnity in
surfing the plaintiffs against loss to the
extent ana not exceeding $4,000 result
ing from the insolvency of debtors
subsequently the plaintiffs shipped to
the Bloomsbury Carpet Company 40
bales Of yarn for SS,S23.21, receiving in
payment promissoSy notes. Later the
indemnity bond was extended to losses
on shipments, and it was learned that
the Bloomsbury Carpet Works were in
insolvency. Suit was accordingly
brought to recover on the indemnity
bond. the plaintiffs claiming $3237.41 as
the aggregate. The suit was brought
in May, and in July the defendant s
demurrer and amended demurrer were
sustained @and Judgment ordered for
defendant in the superior. court, the
plaintiff appealing. Charles A. Mer-
riil for the plaintiff; Edgar r. Cham
pin for the defendant
The next case was that of Olive A.
Pierce VS.. Maria LeMonier and A. L.
Warner, the case being a bill in equity
brought by the plaintiff for an account
ing and for redemption of d certain
mortgage given by the plaintiff to the
defendant, Maria LeAdonier and by her
assigned to A. L. Warner. The case
was referred to a master, and at q
hearing in the superior court the ex-
ceptions of Maria LeATonier were over
ruled. the plaintiffs exception was
sustained and the masters report with
this exception sustained and confirmed.
and decree ordered that upon the
payment to the plaintiff the mortgage
should be discharged. Maria LeMo-
nler appealed. Rufus B. Dodge, Jr..
William J. Taft for the plaintiff; Hop
kins, Smith & Hopkins for the defend
ant
The. case of Allen ]. Ellsbury of
Fitchburg VS.. the New York, New Ha-
ven and Hartford Railroad Company
was an action Of tort to recover for in
5uries received while coupling cars The
plaintiff alleged defective coupling In
the superior court it was held that the
plaintiff could not recover, and the case
was taken from the jury, a verdict for
the defendant being ordered. f. J. e.
mcconnell for the plaintiffs Frank p.
Goulding, William c. Mellish, for the
defendants.
Lawyers William A. Gle and William
T. Meliish made the arguments in the
last case of the day, that Of Maurice
y. Clare, administrator VS.. the New
YORK, New Haven and Hartford rail-
road. The case was brought under the
employers liability act, and Col. Gile
made some caustic comments upon the
operation of the act. The plaintiffs in
testate was injured while operating a
hand car on the defendant road near
Webster, in June, 1891, and died the
next Gay. The plaintif brought a pre-
vious action, in which Judgment was
Tor the defendant. In the second action
Inc court took the case from the Jury
and ordered verdict for the defend
ant Col. Gle, in speaking of the en-
ployers liability act said that it had
been framed to protect the employees.
but the result Of its operation had been
otherwise. William A, Gile Frank nj.
Morrison for the plaintiffs Frank p
Goulding, William G. Mellish for the
defendant.
Three cases We're submitted on briefs
without argument. The first was the
case of Clarence r. Pratt VS.. Bernard
McGuinness and Albert M. Arm
strong. The case was q bill In equity
brought by the purchaser Of a part
ner's undivided interest in certain ma
chinery. The case was referred to a
master, who found that the legal title
to the machinery was in the defend
ants hands, but held by him as a part
nership asset. In the superior court
the bill was dismissed, from which de-
cision the plaintiff appealed William
f.44 .1s.tr, ~. y r