The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-01-06
A LONG DOCKET.
Civil Cases Before the Sixth District
Court.
Rendered For a TallOr's Bill
Contracted in England.

Mhflomlna Lingo claims TO nave been
cruelty treated and injured by Vincenzo
Marcialeohas and the claim was heard in
the Sixth District Court this forenoon
before Judge Sweetland aud verdict
was given for S25 ana costs
Judgment for Uhe plaintiff for SIS. 76
was given in the case Of W. ;. Sweet IL
Son against William DeMass on book ac-
count
In the case sof BagdsZar Andosian
against John NaZaglan, which was "a
suit TO recover on promissory note, de-
cision for s95 was given for the plaintiff.
A decision for Sl7. 10 was given in favor
OF Perkins Bros. against Francis Hinley
on book account.
George w. Rome has for some time had
his tailoring done by A. StuckhandS Sons,
London, England, but he has failed 10
pay his bill, ,siDonntlng now go slO5. Is. "A
suit was brought against him by them
for this amount last March and has
moved its way along in the courts until
today when q decision was entered tor
xl05. 6s in favor of plaintiff
In the trespass and sjeotment case or
Thomas l.. Rooney against John Sladen
decision was given I'm favor Of plain
tiff for possession and costs.
The CASE of Jasper C. Hyde against
Eben ID. Collins was settled by agree
ment OF parties Clementine karozo
dehibsV bSuiOuO NhIuso was a. sulU OF
trover and conversion in which the
plaintiff claims the loss OF uniform
valued at s26. He was given judgment
for S2) and costs.
Frank A. Doe got Judgment for sl32 10
for services rendered To the u. 4. Quinn
Refrigerator company.
The COOPERATIVE savings company
owed a balance of Sl7l. 72 on rent of Office
building hired from Emily Davidson ct
al, and the latter got decision for that
amount and costs.
Camille Il. GirouX sued Arnato Giroux
for ~, which ths latter owed him, and
got Judgment Tor that amount ana costs.
Mamie l.. Holt, administrators OF the
estate OF Albert Holr got Judgment for
sl12 81 against William ii. Russell for
principal and interest on promissory
note given in 1893
Judgment Tor $li9 - was given Man
chester * Hudson against Judson :.
Blackmar for materials furnished the de-
fendant.
Sarah s. B. Geer against George NJ.
Jones. This was a suit TO recover for
personal services, ana the testimony took
no most CT the courts attention this
morning, and mu,h Of 10 was very wear
isome. st II some of IL was highly en-.
tertaining and caused many smile to
run through the court room.
lt was the occasion for tine airing of
many lamlly matters tnat were never in
tended TO ccins before the court, and the
defendant took the opportunity while on
the stand tn deliver al Grafton upon the
character of the plaintiff until he was
reminded by the court ttat something
severe would have TO be administered to
him II he did not attend to business. In
other words he was a fresh witness
nd the court called him down.
The plai1ttn had rendered about five
weeks services To the defendant in the
capacity of "A nurse and being unable 60
get anv inoney for the same beyond 81
which she Claims 10 have rec eiveu sought
10 obtain some $50 through the court.
She made out her casa all We'll enough.
but could not establish that tile debt had
been acknowledged by the defendant
the defendants plea Of the statute OF linn
itations,
The plaintiff being a di slant relative to
the wife OF the defendant had spent con-
siderable time at his house, previous TO
the time mentioned in the suit, coming
and going at Intervals, and making little
visits. At such time she had always as
sisted In the housework. Now the plain
till, on finding himself thus sued prepared
a bill agsiust the plaintiff for hoard, etc. ,
10 cover all the time she had spent at his
house aud this rs presented was very
ridiculous affair.
The attorney for the defence did not
attempt TO make any use OF IL. After the
family affair had been discussed in de-
tsil. ana pri gaJe :nemorandums and en-
tries IN diaries had been read and the ar
guments subm tied, the Judge dociusd
that the plaintiff had a just claim but
under the law 10 was outlawed. 30 the
decision was for the defendant for costs