Worcester morning daily spy., 1898-03-09
COURT CALENDAR.
A Breakdown in the Short List
Before Judge Gaskill.
Colonel Gle Brings Suit Against John
Reed to Recover for Professional
sewees-other Return
Day Gases.

until $50 o'clock this morning.
In the case of Charles r. Goeway vs..
the Fitehburg Railroad Company, the
plaintiff was called at the afternoon ses-
sion, but failed to appear, and an entry
of mon suit" was made. George A.
Torrey appeared for the defendant.
In the case of William Power VS..
| Daniel Mccarthy, which has been pend
| ing in the superior court for the last
six years, settlement has finally been
effected, judgment being entered in the
sum Of $500. The suit was brought by
! the plaintiff, who was a contractor,
! against Mr.. Mccarthy, for an alleged
/ balance due him on the contract for
building a house, the amount claimed
being $5S5, and with extra work in the
sum Of 1920. so, amounting to 1905. so,
which, with interest claimed to date
since June %, 1S93 of $271.76, made a
total amount of $11S7.54 Burton w.
Potter appeared for the plaintiff; Sulli-
van & O'Connell for defendant.
In the two cases of Rufus B. Tobey,
administrator, VS.. tine Fitehburg Saw
ings Bank and the City Institution for
Savings, settlement has been effected.
George r. Warfield and H. c. Hartman
for the plaintiff; Charles E. Ware,
judgment for the plaintiff in the sum
of 81 and costs, taxed at $35 16, has been
entered III the case og j. A. Kinds
& Co. VS.. James Early, in an action to
recover for replevined goods. Rice
King & Rice for plaintiff Thayer &
Cobb for defendant.
The following cases are continued:
2456-Carpenter vs.. Fisher.
17S9-Bradley Fertilizer Company VS..
Howe.
2S76-Holt ct AL vs. Allen.
The following are continued to June:
24S3-Dumas VS.. Leblanc.
24S4-Fitch VS.. McMurty.
No. 2315, Aslanian VS.. Dostumian ct
al. has been passed.
The following cases are in order for
today:
2212-Newton VS. city of Worcester
Milton, Herbert Parker; Rugg.
2591-Newton VS.. city of Worcester.
Milton, Herbert Parker; Rugg.
2513-Lowders VS.. Robbins. Haskell; /;
Cowden.
2535-Miller VS.. Worcester & Suburban
Street Railway Company Sullivan &
O'Connell; Herbert Parker, Milton.
254S-McGaffey VS.. Newell. Morgan &
Stewart: Coney.
2592-Neadreau VS.. Worcester Con-
struction Company. Shaughnessey; Fales
& Mellen.
26S2-L' Heureux ct al. VS.. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company Haggerty &
Kane, E. S. Hill; Goulding, Mellish.
2637-DWyer VS. Worcester & Su-
burban Street Railway Company.
Thayer & Cobb; Herbert Parker, Mil
ton
Louis T. Michener of Shelbyville, Ind.
VS.. Chester T. Linley of Spencer, an ac-
tion of contract ad damnum $4,000. This
iG 10 1aa of
sorry note of S3500 alleged to be due the
plaintiff. Rice, King & Rice for the
plaintiff.
Laura A. Gardner VS.. Joseph Berth
iaume, both of Worcester This is an
action of tort, in which the plaintiff
seeks to recover $5000 The allegation
is that Dec. 80, 1897, the defendant en-
tered the tenement of the plaintiff and
made a disturbance and deprived the
plaintiff of the peace and quiet to
which she was entitled; also threat
ened, scolded and reViled her; that
she became i'll and hysterical
Spencer Gas Company VS.. Worcester
and Suburban Street Railway Company
an action of tort, with ad damnum
$4,000 In this case the plaintiff seeks to
recover damages for the alleged lack Of
care on the part of the defendant in
the construction of its road.
Arthur Howard VS.. Rice & Griffin
Manufacturing Company, ali Of Wor-
cester, an action of tort, ad damnum
$4,000 The allegation is that the plain
tiff, while at work in the shop of the
defendant, was thrown upon a saw,
breaking his right arm and sustaining
other injuries. Charles A. Merrill for
the plaintiff
Emma c. Hornibrook VS.. Carl Crisand
both of Worcester. An action of tort,
ad damnum $1,000. The plaintiff alleges
I that Dec "a, 1897, while crossing Wood
land street, this city, she was thrown to
the ground and severely injured by be-
ing run over by the horse and wagon
of the defendant. n. W. Aiken for the
plaintiff.
Daniel w. Darling ct al Of Worcester
VS.. Francis L. White ct al of Boston. In
this action the plaintiff seeks to recover
the amount alleged to be due upon a
contract connected with building GER
tain state buildings, including the Med
field and Danyers asylums for the in
sane. Henry F. Harris for the plain
tiffs.
Hopeville Manufacturing Company VS..
William Allen ct ais. an action of con-
tract with ad damnum $500 This is an
action to recover for alleged fraud of
contract in putting in boiler. David
Manning for the plaintiff.
SUPREME COURT REscRIPT
A rescript was handed down from the
supreme court Tuesday, in the case of
Charles H O'Malley VS.. the Twenty-Five
! Associates. both of Clinton, the excep-
tons of the plaintiff being sustained.
The court holds that "some of the evi
dence excluded should have been admit
ted. There was evidence for the iurv of
the due care of the plaintiff and of the
want OF due care on the part of the de-
PENDANTS in maintaining a suitable hoist
ing apparatus The case was tried AT
the December sitting Of 1896. before
Judge Hopkins, and a verdict for the
| defendants was ordered by the court,
| The allegation Of the plaintiff was that
the defendant owned certain block in
! Clinton, occupied by tenants for whose
use hosting fall and tackle were pro-
vided and that while the plaintiff was
using the hosting fall and tackle in
! the defendants tenants, the tackle
broke and fell on the plaintiff, causing
serious injuries. John W. Corcoran fol
the plaintiff; Frank p. Goulding, Jona-
than Smith for the defendants.
WILLARD RICE ESTATE FOR
y WATER BASIN
The deed conveying the Willard B.
Rice estate in Southboro to the metro
politan water board, was filed at the
register Of deeds Tuesday morning. The
conveyance includes the Rice water and
mill privilege, first bought by the city