The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-11-22
Plaintiff in a Bill in Equity Seeks
to Recover Damages for De-
posts of Dust From Coal Sheds
in FitChburg
DEFENDANT CLAIMED
he. USED DUE CARE
Rent of a Tenement Lowered 81
a Month and Opportunity to
Sell Property Lost Are Chief
Grounds Upon Which Plaintiff
Bases His Action

Special to The Spy.
| Fftchburg, Nov. 21-Coal dust COM
ing from the coal yard of Joseph But
Ter on South Street, Fitchburg, is the
cause of bill in equity heard, this
morning. Charles A. Petts. the plain
tiff. has a tenement house adjoining the
coal sheds, and claims the defendant,
Mr. Butler, has coal sheds adjoining
| his house, one end thereof coming
within five feet of his land. He al
leges large quantities of coal are
dumped there, causing large quantities
of dust to rise which invade his tene-
ments and render the yard useless for
drying clothes. He asks that Mr.. But
Ter be enjoined from further maintain
ing the sheds and made pay him for
the damage already sustained.
The defendant in reply admits the
maintenance of the coal sheds, but
says they are not so close as set forth,
and that they have done plaintiff no in
jury. He maintains that his business
is carried on in a reasonable manner,
and that a certain amount of dust is
inevitable.
The evidence for the plaintiff was to
the effect that since the erection of
the coal sheds the dust nuisance has
increased, that the plaintiff has had to
reduce the rent of one tenement 81 per
month, and that he lost the probable
sale of the estate in consequence of the
dust.
The defense set forth that the es-
tates are near the railroad and sta
tionary engine, that there is no large
amount of dust, that proper and rea-
sonable care is used in conducting the
business of loading, unloading and
screening coal, that there is very little
more dirt and dust now on the prem
Uses than there was previously. Evil
dence on all these points was intro
duced The case occupied the attention
of the court all morning and decision
was reserved.
Henry t. Allen Of Fitchburg, filed
a bill in equity. The defendant is Nor
ris Samuel, a Boston aucFoneer. In
March last, Mr. Allen owned a grocery
store on fremont Street, Boston, and
claims the stock and fixtures were
worth about $1100 He gave the stock
and fixtures into Mr.. SamuePs hands
to sell at auction, and after doing so
Mr.. Samuel rendered him an account
and claimed the whole had sold for
$216.5S and after deducting all eX-
penses, gave Mr. Allen a check for
| S102.45. Mr. Allen claimed the goods
sold for a larger sum and demanded
an itemized account, which he has new
er got. Mr. Allen believes the sales
amounted to $500, and that there is
about $4S4 due him. The defendant
| filed an answer denying that the goods
were worth $1100, and says that they
were worth about 1925, and that large
stock of the goods in the store were
goods he himself put in to SELL The
plaintiff was represented by Charles &
| Hayden of Fitchburg. The defendant
counsel was Doherty, Lowrie & Gins
berg, Boston, but neither defendant nor
his counsel put in an appearance and
after hearing Mr.. Aliens statements
made judgment in his favor in the sum
of $5O054. Court adjourned sine die at
| 315 p. m.
During the noon recess the court
heard the divorce case of Lillian NJ.
Farrar VS., William G. Farrar and a
decree nisi was granted on the ground
of gross and confirmed habits of in
| toXication. There was no appearance
on the part of the libelee, and at the
call of the docket at the morning ses-
sion c. S. Hayden, counsel for Mr.. Far
rar, announced his disappearance.