The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-05-29
N AUL|FFE CASE HEARD.
Bitter Controversy Over the Affair In
the Supreme Court Today.
DECISION AGAINST EUGENE.
business Left In the Hands OF Owen
McAuiiffe, Who viii Give a $4,000
Bond to Irotect His son's Interests
Petitions for Divorce.

A hearing was given I'm the court cham
bers today on the co-partnership dispute
In the firm of Owen McAuliffe g. Son.
The controversy was first made known
to the Iublic by the filing
of petition by Owen McAulIffe
asking that his son, Eugene T., the
junior member Of the firm, be excluded
from participation in the management
of the business and that receiver he APP
pointed TO wind up the firms affairs.
The father charged that his son is will
fully or otherwise incompetent to have
charge of the large interests Of the CO.
partnership.
Tne wishes of the senior partner were
mad clearer today when Owen Nc
Auliffe through his counsel, George j.
West. asked to be appointed receiver.
Owen McAullffe claims that h is owner
Of three-fourths interest I'm the busI-
ness, the remaining fourth, only, belong
ing to his son. Eugene claims half in
terest.
The firm, according to the elder Nc
Auliffe, is solvent, but will be compelled
To meet $40, 900 in outstanding notes In a
few weeks.
Eugene's Side of the Story.
Eugene was taken into the firm in
1882 The greater part OF the firms
growth since that time he attributes to
his own MANAGEMENT. The tiling and
mant ell intere sts, which have been la ely
added, Eugene claims are understood
only b. himself.
Eugene alleges that he asked for
an account of the firms business, but
bis father refused t) allow it except ac-
cordin2 to his ow 4 methods Eugene re-
gene refused TO accede Co this. Then the
father suggested the appoint nenJ of "a
receiver, and at n later date stipulated
himself as the proper person to assume
the position.
Eug ne a4reed TO receivership. but
retaiiated by insisting that a third and
d 81 terested party be appointed. He
suggested the name OF st pnen y. Ed
wards. Owen fatty refused to consider
the proposition.
Considerable bit terness was displayed
on both sides a. the hearing today Eu-
gene charges that his fathers grievance
origin lied in family troubles and that
mismanagement M on his part cuts no
figure in the present unpleasant ness.
He denies that the firm Is indebted to
the extent Of $4,000.
Mr.. West Grows Restive.
Mr.. West grew restive under the allie
cations of the defendant and stated that
he could prove that there is something
stronger than family quarrels at the
bottom Of this affair.
The investigation of the accountant, he
said, shows that a systematic embezz 0.
ment has been going on for several years
He declared the firm TO be already SlO, O0O
hind d that something must Le done
at once to prevent IL from going TO the
wall.
The court, after some deliberation. de-
creed that the business snail remain in
the hands of OSen McAuliffe, aud that
h. give his sou sufficient Doud to secure
his interest In the business. The two
sides finally agreed upon $4,000 as
the amount of the bond. Owen McAuliffe
was repr eseuted 10y George j. West and
Eugene y T.. j. Mccarthy
An Administrators Wanted.
Owing to the decease of the acting ad-
ministratcr OF the estate In dispute the
case Of Cook vs. Bucklin is postponed
until a new administrator is appointed.
All Want Divorces.
Gertrude w. Doe asks divorce from
Charles L. Doe Tor extreme cruelty.
Della NJ. McManus asks to be released
from John McManus on the ground of
deser ion and void marriage.
Annie B. Gardner asks TO be released
from Bradford w. Gardner. Petition
amended and further notice
Cora A. Harriso charges her husband
Thomas H.. with non-supp)rt aud prays
that the court may dissolve the marriage
contr
Hannah Smith al res that John f..
Smith is "A very cruel husband aud wants
to be released from her marriage with
him.
Katie Mcdonald asks divorce from
David l.. Mcdonald on the ground of de-
sertiou.
Daniel A. Nichols charges his wife
Susan Il. with gross misbehavior. He
desires To be oil ce more a single man.
Some complication has arisen
in the peti ion for divorce pre-
sented by Miunie f. White against
her husband. Clffor 4. White.
She alleges non-support. The aues ion
arose in the lower court. where the
original petition was presented, as to
whether the petitioner had a
right to file her petition in that
court, the evidence showing that
after being deserted by her husband
she went to Bos on to live with her par
euts aud was living with them when she
filei her petition. The problem was sub
mitttd d to the court
MANv NCyU MCMpCpc