Daily Republican., 1882-12-14
THE RICE CASE. rro.
RTTURN a VERDICT
DJJCh,nr PIAINTIFF-sHEE'
lsb E.sALF sIrT ASIDE

spsnt was s.a anawered 8 per cent.
Joe ,st SisueS examination he said that
cICs' ,o soing into the real estate
ieus,O b"d kept hat storein this
Dsss % u n obtained his ideas of the
saat' a. business from MI f'"N'"A
e,iUbt sworn and testified
EihaLn h..,asa S in this city, and some
v % l','s "a suqag ged in the real ss-
E.aS .sSo,", His commission for co. o.
ssa'ln"St, I.nts had ranged from b to 10
rng iS SsCcording to the value OF ths
gent IA ~ tbo trouble experienced
ipol,tipE the rent. -, ...,,4.,, |
SO S,.,Ss night sworn ana Vesa,nsu tnsa
GsSig. ,%Tgsrsd M in the real estate
Alt.sS,t6is y, II his city, has been In II Tor
iSnaa. '" ~ Years; was in 1t some time
gHb biz father. His general ~ Gnargel In .
e,Dscting rent was from o 10 ~ Per
:. p,nuinRton sworn and teHti-
W., W., bs had been in the real estate
A.. @ fOr the past ten years, ana
w. 80 under any circumstances
I'm mors than Ave per cent. for col.
gSs He had . large numoer OF
..s,tIss - in his charge.
n Rice said that he had no ] more
-. S "a examine. and Mr., Higgins
u william j. Fisher, who was
= = and testified that he Is clerk
Y samuel AMI ". MsCaulley; has been
X MIN A number OF years, and since
u,GanlIey had been admitted tol
.sg has had general charge OF the
s,,,', the witness had charge OF mr;
y. NJ nroperty, and had never heard
.'.mnIainis FROM him in regard to
',ss "a The Ee neral commission
MI by his frm for collecting rents
-iepsr cent and never less; second
!" ,gsDts did not charge that much.
~, sEsmined by Mr.. Rlce-the
',Iry rented for $12 per month"; we
aTsl5 for it for u short time; tue
~ room of one Of the buildings
IA ior Sc and the pattern shop Tor
M month; never charged less than
" cent for collecting rents; the Wit
was not paid regular salary but
wrd a commission on the amount
Iuness done, 3,
NJ Rice addressed the jury, and
itbs iacts OF the case we're that he
rmv,d a sun of money from Mr..
S,uIlsy, for which he had given him
AwA Just before the note matured
Igv that be would bs unable to
m, and went to Ar. McCaulley
ISd him that he would put certain
rtprtjss in his hands and allow him
Isty the rents TO the payment OF the
IA be had done this, as he felt he
Nvudsr sacred obligation which
,Jhed to discharge his anxiety 70
yaIs nots was so great, that he had
Ia aken money which he should
,ye used 10 his family and placed in
Bis mans hands, in the hope that he
Hould act As honorable toward h,m as
% had tried to act to him.
He cited Sbylock in tho Merchant OF
eniOe and sid that this was u par
sl case, with the exception that
H. McCaullsy had already taken the
Ound Of fiSh, and his hands were now
tipping with gore. lie concluded hi'
lnStkI by asking the jnty to do him
uItlCe, as they expected TO be dealt
lib Justly WIEN they came before thC
ltat judge,
NJ Higgins said that the fact OF Mr..
Ce obtaining this money had neVel
ssn denied. He received 1t at a time
hen be was in great need Of 1t, and
% grateful for the favor, but nov
ben Mr.. McCaulley wants his money
tcOmes here and deDOunces him as u
block. Mr. Higgins spoke for som'
ns and thoroughly reviewed the cast
d the statements Of MIR. Rice. HI
ssHded Mr.. McCaullSy from the AZ
rEs which had been made by Mr.
o, and said that he would appea
an Mr., Rice, the attorney, client an(
lAnssS, to Mr.. Rice himself. The jur!
Ne charged by Judge Houston, VIII
NJ that great stress had been laid up
tue fact that the plaintiff had charE
excessive commissions; this hes
NAlDg TO do with the action i'll thi
as.
There is no question Of law in Ia
aIeE, and all the jury had to do, wa
deal with the facts and rsnder thei
llICt accordingly.
The case Of Arthur Powell vs. Henr
Conrad, administrator of the eetat
GeOrge Powell, deceased, was Calle
y a jury sworn, but i'll mediatel
lkfNaIds discharged until this morI
E
John Blggs, EsQ, then asked til
OGtt to hear evidence in the Cass
lillian |, Webb and wife VS., RiChar
Vann, on the application OF tn
Ae'ltf TO set aside the Sheriff's sale
Property at Summit Bridge, on az
e1at Of the price realized being ts
wv its actual value. John Ii. RN'
v Esq, for the defense. The prope
sd fer 1925 and several witness,
alaed that it would have been ches
$4,000.
af' Webb testified that the prOpert
aQCOSt him nearly $4,000 and the sgsl
uoasd effected the insurance testint
stle had placed $l200 on it, which
'lsIuered three fourths its value.
witness for the defeuse stated th
Ssoold not consider the place wor'
S'e than $1,000. .. D..
AE Rodney conteDdel that the sa
yplO not be sst aside, as the pla
SuOeen bought by creditor who
iSa was $1,000.
tns Court decided that the ru
aOula be made absolute and the ga
aside. =.
.ue Jury IN the Rice case came
SSut . 80 o'clock and rendered W
IN layor pf the p'a,ptiff for S16S
nv S1126 less Jnan the amOu
S,aed' During he afternoon N
Y. made a retract on of the romar
,s' saGu DC ha0 made at the morni
'olon, and which were general
'gTPose1 TO beintepded foe Mr.. Lo
"a SAID that he did not wish to ca
'SasCnon on any one, but was gIe'
csAvIted when he opened the case.
vylf9 o9 adjourned ate Is O'Clock uu
V'lo'k this mornipg.
haFEaiMs tor tue moItdaSs.