Sues the City of Providence

Sues the City of Providence

Judge Chester W. Barrows and attorneys for both sides in the million-dollar water suit of S. H. Greene & Sons Corp. against the city of Providence, R. I., spent an entire day going through the plaintiff’s plant at Clyde for the purpose of determining what may properly be considered in evidence as real estate and what is personal property. Attorneys for the plaintiff submitted testimony showing the amount and character of machinery that had been installed in the plant to take the place of the water plant which the plaintiff alleges it will lose by reason of the city of Providence diverting water from the Pawtuxet river. Immediately there arose serious questions as to what was real estate and what was personal property. The city of Providence made repeated objections to admitting certain evidence submitted by Treasurer Greene of the plaintiff corporation. Finally the court decided that in producing testimony on 100 or more machines, he would have to pass on each one separately. This proceeding took much time and promised to drag along some time. Finally Judge Barrows suggested that the jury be given a recess and that counsel and the court spend a day at the plant. This was agreed to and the jury was dismissed until the following week. Some fine lines were drawn in getting at the proper classification of machinery. The court said that any machinery that was built into the plant might properly be called real estate, but such of the machinery as was of a portable character might properly be called personal property.

Judge Chester W. Barrows and attorneys for both sides in the million-dollar water suit of S. H. Greene & Sons Corp. against the city of Providence, R. I., spent an entire day going through the plaintiff’s plant at Clyde for the purpose of determining what may properly be considered in evidence as real estate and what is personal property. Attorneys for the plaintiff submitted testimony showing the amount and character of machinery that had been installed in the plant to take the place of the water plant which the plaintiff alleges it will lose by reason of the city of Providence diverting water from the Pawtuxet river. Immediately there arose serious questions as to what was real estate and what was personal property. The city of Providence made repeated objections to admitting certain evidence submitted by Treasurer Greene of the plaintiff corporation. Finally the court decided that in producing testimony on 100 or more machines, he would have to pass on each one separately. This proceeding took much time and promised to drag along some time. Finally Judge Barrows suggested that the jury be given a recess and that counsel and the court spend a day at the plant. This was agreed to and the jury was dismissed until the following week. Some fine lines were drawn in getting at the proper classification of machinery. The court said that any machinery that was built into the plant might properly be called real estate, but such of the machinery as was of a portable character might properly be called personal property.