The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-10-01

/ agreement tnaC certain instrument
| referred to in the bill might be con-
J sidered part Of the pleadings for the
! purposes of a hearing upon the de-
murrer. The court overruled the de-
murrer and defendant appealed. The
case comes UP on report from Judge
LaWton for further proceedings by the
| superior Court. If no error is found
| in his ruling, a final decree for the
! plaintiff is to be entered.
! John N. Flagg VS.. Edward S. Brad
| ford, treasurer of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. This was an acttcn
| to recover $4,000 for property taken in
| Boylston by the Metropolitan Water
, Board. The case was heard before
| Judge Gaskill on the writ, the plain
I tiff's declaration and respondents mo-
/ ton to dismiss. The court sustained
the motion to dismiss and ordered the
action dismissed Plaintiff excepted
| and appealed. By consent of parties,
! the case is reported for the determine
/ ton of the Supreme Court. Herbert
3 Parker and Henry H. Fuller for plain
+ tiff; J. NJ. Hallowell for defendant.
Elizabeth A Rutherford VS.. Eta M
! Paddock. This was an action of tort
| to recover for SANDER, and the jury re-
| turned verdict for the plaintiff. 1t
! comes up on exceptions by the defend
{ ant. Thayer & Rugg and S. B. Taft
for plaintiff; George S. Taft for de-
/ PENDANT.
The following cases were set down
for i1gument in Boston,
! Isaac S. Borley of New York VS.. Hen
i ry Allison of Fitchburg. This is an ac-
| ton of tort to recover for libel The
case was heard before Judge Handy N
/ November, 1900 The jury returned a
! verdict for $4,000, and the case comes
! to the full bench on exceptions by the
| defendant. Herbert Parker for plain
| tiff; Warren H. Atwood and G. A.
Batchelder for defendant.
/ City of Worcester VS.. the Worcester
Consolidated Street Railway Company
This was a petition for writ of man
damus to compel the company to main
tain and keep in proper repair the
pavement of Millbury Street, in accord
ance with the terms of it's franchise.
The cases We're heard before Chief
Justice oliver Wendell Holmes in
April. Both parties desired to obtain
the decision Of the court on the sub
stantive question whether or not
under the law applicable to the cases
at the time when these petitions were
| filed the stipulation or conditions re-
quiring the respondent to pave and
perform other active duties as set forth
in the grants of location, are binding
upon the respondent. If the court an
swers in the affirmative, the writs are
to issue; if otherwise, the petitions are
to be dismissed.
The company claims that under the
street railway law of 1898 it is not
| obliged to keep the pavement in repair,
and the city claims it is. A. P. Rugg
for the city; Warren & Garfield for
respondents.
City of Worcester VS.. the Worcester
Consolidated Street Railway Company
This was a bill in equity for a man
datory injunction against the company
to direct it to put in proper repair the
pavements of Millbury Street and to
keep them in repair The case comes
up on plaintiffs appeal from an order
of the Superior Court that the defend
ants demurrer be sustained and the
plaintiffs bill dismissed. Arthur P.
Rugg for plaintiff; Warren & Garfield
for defendant.
City of Worcester VS.. the Worcester
Consolidated Street Railway Company.
This was an action to recover money
expended by the city in repairing the
pavements on West, Green, Millbury,
Shrewsbury, Grove Streets and Park
Avenue. The Superior Court sustained
a demurrer by the defendant and or
dered judgment for the defendant The
case comes up on plaintiffs appeal.
Arthur ?. Rugg for plaintiff; Warren
& Garfield for defendant.
City of Worcester VS.. The Worcester
Consolidated Street Railway Company
/ This was a bill in equity for a manda-
tory injunction against the defendant,
directing it to put in repair and keep
in repair the block paving of Pleas
ant Street. Defendant filed demurrer
WbiOb aina1 q Nd r,1o INF h
was dismissed by Superior Court
Plaintiff appeals. Arthur P. Rugg for
plaintiff, Warren & Garfield for defend
ant
Hannah NJ. Dresser. ct. ais, execu-
tors VS.. Henry c. D. Dresser ct. als.,a
pelants This is the Chester A. Dresser
will case of Southbridge in which the
jury last year returned a verdict
against the will, The case comes up
as executors exceptions. Frank P.
Goulding and John M. Cochran for
executors, Herbert Parker for appel
lants.
Charles M. Rice exor., VS.. Edward S.
Bradford, treasurer; mayor and alder
men of Fftchburg VS.. Fitchburg Rail-
road Company, three cases.
The defendant was defaulted in the
case of Anglo-American Land Mortgage
and Legacy Company Limited, VS.
HAudlllS CIOCh6I his was an actlOn
in which the plaintiff, an English cor
poration, seeks to recover money called
for from its stockholders, of whom
AdamsCrocker of Fitchburg is one. De-
PENDANT refused to meet the calls The
case was heard before Judge Henry K.
Braley who ordered judgment for the
plaintiff in the sum of $2,O4124 At the
request of the defendant the case was
reported to the Supreme Judicial Court
Later in the day the court affirmed
the judgment of the Superior Court
The following case was continued on
account of the death of F. P Goulding:
West Boylston Manufacturing Company
VS.. Metropolitan Water Board. This
is a petition for a writ of mandamuS to
compel the board to take certain mill
property of the petitioner under Sec
ton of chapter 4S8 of the acts of
1895, on the Quinapoxet River in
Holden. At the request of both par
ties the case is reported to the full
bench by Justice Marcus P. Knowlton
Frank P. Goulding for petitioner.
The court adjourned at 1890 until
$50 this morning when Judge Barker
will preside for any matters to come
before a single Justice.
At a conference between the commit
tee on the Goulding memorial service
and the court, it was decided to have
the exercises this afternoon at 2.15 be-
fore Judge Barker.
AVITAREI E'S CASE