Worcester morning daily spy. (Worcester, Mass.) 1888-1898, 1898-01-14
vERDICTS REACHED
In Two Cases of Edward Hans
com VS., W. H. Sawyer.
One Was for the Plaintiff, the Other for
the Defendant Holder Separate Main
tenance Case Was Unfinished.

Judge Bond, THURSDAY, the jury an
nounced its verdicts in the two cases of
Edward Hanscom VS.. William H. Saw
yer. The jury was out until II o'clock,
Wednesday night, before agreement
was reached; the cases being given on
the two following questions;
F'irst-Was it agreed by the plaintiff
and defendant that the bowling alleys
in the basement were to be left in the
basement at the expiration of his ten
ancy?
Second-Did the defendant enter upon
the premises described in the lease and
take possession of the same for the
non-payment of rent, as provided in
said lease?
The jury answered the first question
in the affirmative and the second ques-
ton in the negative. They assessed
damages for the plaintiff in the sum of
$500, on count l, for conversion of four
bowling alleys in the basement.
In the first case, the plaintiff, in No
vember, 1894, hired an estate at 615 Main
street, under written lease. The prem
Uses were the north half Of the first floor
of the brick block numbered GIT Main
street. The plaintiff occupied these
premises as a billiard hall and bowling
alley and for that purpose had fixed
up fine bowling alleys with the fixtures
proper in such places and the imple-
ments required. He also put in three
pool tables, billiard table and other
| personal property. On Dec. 2, 1896, the
defendant, 1t is alleged, entered upon
the said premises, caused the doors to
! be locked and nailed up. In consequence,
the business of the plaintiff was inter
rupted. The plaintiff further alleged
| that on Dec. Z, 1896, the defendant gave
him notice to quit the premises alleg-
| ing that he was in arrears for rent. The
plaintiff made a demand in writing upon
| the defendant for immediate possession.
In this case the ad damnum is placed
at $4,000 The jury reported a verdict
for the defendant.
| In the second case. the parties are
the same The plaintiff alleges that the
! defendant converted to his own use the
! goods mentioned in a schedule annexed
1 The second count alleges that the de-
( PENDANT forcibly entered the plaintiff S
tenement, and nailed up the doors and
kept them locked against the plaintiff
4 by a paddock. The defendant exercised
dominion over the premises, to the ex-
clusion of the plaintiff, and continued
+ the same wrongful acts until the time
of the lease had expired, thereby pre-
venting the plaintiff from carrying on
his business and preventing him from
| removing his personal property William
A. Gile for the plaintiff; Frank P. Could
ing, William c. Mellish for the defend
ant.
HOLDEN DAMAGE CASE.
The case which was on trial during
the day was that Of Silas H Loring of
Holden VS.. the town of Holden for the
assessment of damages to his property
4 by the abolition of grade crossing on
the Fitchburg Railroad, in March, 1896.
( The case will be continued today. Bur-
i ton W. Potter for the plaintiffs Thayer
1 & Cobb for the defendant.
JURY-WAIvED SESSION.
In the jury-waived session of the SUI
perior court, before Judge Wardweil
the case of Melanie Prefontaine VS..
4 George Prefontaine, both of this city.
was continued; the witnesses, many OF
whom were French, speaking through
an interpreter. The parties were mar
ried in L'ange Garden, Quebec. in April.
1883 and since 1887 have lived In Wor-
! cester. Gross and confirmed habits of
: intoxication, cruel and abusive treat
ment, and wanton neglect to provide
support are alleged. J. F. Jandron for
the hbellant; Paul Bronner for the H.
/ belize.
/ The. case of Sarah A. Draper VS.. Will
nam Il. Draper ct al, all of Milford,
was heard. The case is to have a deed
conveyed by the plaintiff to her hlls-
band, the defendant, cancelled. Kent &,
Dewey for the plaintiff; Williams &,
Williams for the defendant.
ADJOURNED TILL MONDAY.
The hearing in the case of Mary Dorr
vs.. James Dorr, both of Holden. for
separate support, was continued in the
probate court before Judge Forbes.
Thursday, occupying the entire day.
The defense examined a large number
of witnesses during the afternoon after
the completion Of the petitioners case
and Mr.. Dorr took the stand himself
denying the charges of cruelty and
drunkenness. The case was adjourned
until Monday, when sixty additional
witnesses will be examined. w. E. SIb
ley, w. S. B. Hopkins for the petitioner:
Sheehan & Cutting for the respondent
INSOLVENCY PETITION.
Lyman G. Petts of Holden filed a
voluntary petition in insolvency Thurs
day, the 2Sth inst. being set as the date
of the hearing. Thayer & Cobb appear
for the plaintiff
DURRANT- SHUMWAY CASE.
John e. Sullivan was in Springfield
Thursday, in attendance upon the jury
waived session of the superior cour% be-
fore Judge Hopkins. In the case of Fl.
p Durrant of Holland VS.. Samuel
Shumway of Sturbridge Mr. Sullivan
appeared for the defendant, the case
being an action of tort The plaintiff
purchased, as he alleged, two supposed
" new mich cows in December 1896,
but found them to be pregnant with
calves. After evidence had been heard,
Judge Hopkins reserved his decision.
Gardner, Leach of Palmer for plaintiff;
n. j. Montague, Sullivan & O'Connell
for the defendant.
ATTACHMENTS
William A. Fuller VS.. H. Maitland
Holmes, Lancaster, $1,000, second district
court of eastern Worcester; writ served
by Bartlett. Charles G. Bancroft for
plaintiff.
Harry w. Taylor VS.. II. Maitland
Homes, Lancaster. $1,000. second district
court of eastern Worcester; writ served
by Bartlett. Charles G. Bancroft for
plaintiff
Charles l.. Fay ct al. VS.. Eaneline Bo-
min, otherwise known as Emeline Bor-
min, otherwise known as Emeline Ben