The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-07-11
AN INTERESTING POINT.
Raised In Civil Division Of the Dis
trict Court.
New Trials Asked for I'm Two Well
known Cases.

ASsOclate Judge heuckert Dau Chso vi
considerable interest tried before him In
the District Court this morning. The
plaintiffs in the case were Murray, sphinx
X Company and the defendant Araham
Kamelhor. The plaintiff sued the. defend
ant to recover for bill OF S142. 10, sold TO
Goldberg Brothers, who up to June last
carried on smallwares store at the cor
ner OF Globe and Eddy street in this city.
Kamelhor was formerly in business at
the same place and sold out TO the Gold
bergs, and II Is through representations
made concerning this sale that he was
sued, and the case tried is apt to decide
a point OF importance to the business
community.
The defendant, about the 18th day OF
December last, went to the plaintiffs store
and told them he had sold out his busi-
ness and asked for u statement OF his ac-
count. The defendant was requested by
Mr.. Blanchard of the firm OF Murray,
Sphinx & Company, to bring the Goldbergs
around and introduce them. This he did
in the afternoon OF the same day and he
also settled his indebtedness TO the firm
at the same time. Now, as TO the man
ner OF the introduction, there was a
different view taken by Mr.. Blanchard,
and the defendant. The former claims
that the latter said in presenting one OF
the Goldberg brothers: 81 have sold TO
these men the stock In my store, worth
$1,000 for 600 in cash." The defendant
claims he did not say the stock was sold
for 800 in cash, but was worth that much
Goldberg Brothers in June made an
assignment to Jacob w. Mathewson and
he testified today that when he took pos.
session Of the property he found about
$50 worth of stock in the store and sl3
worth of goods under a coal heap in the
home of one OF the firm.
Mr.. Blanchard admitted on cross-exam-
ination that the defendant had always
promptly paid his bills when In business,
and that the Goldhergs had paid their
bills up to April II. Mr. Aylesworth, one
OF the witnesses called by the defendant,
admitted on cross examination that Mr..
Kamelhor made practically the same rep
resentations concerning the value OF the
stock TO the firm of Congdon * Ayles-
worth as Murray, Sphinx Co. claimed
were made TO IL.
The defendant swore that he sold the
stock for $780, he receiving s260 in cash
and the balance in two notes for flOO
each, which were endorsed by the father
of the Goldberg brothers. 1t was de-
veloped in cross-examination OF this wit
ness that the Goldbergs were his cousins.
Ii was admitted by the plaintiffs that
they made no demand on the defendant
previous TO issuing their writ OF arrest
against him for fraud and deceit.
+. j. Mccarthy argued that even IL the
defendant had made the representations
he was alleged to have made, he could
not be held at so late day to be respons-
ible for goods sold TO the firm OF Goldberg
Brothers, and he cited a number of au-
thorities in support of his position. Percy
ID. Slocum, attorney for the complainant,
contended that the defendant, having
made false representations, must be held
responsible for the result thereof.
Judge Reuckert stated that he was salts
fled that the defendant made the repre-
sentations charged, and did so with intent
to deceive, but as to his liability for the
bill contracted I'm April he was in doubt,
and would give the counsel an oppor-
tunity to submit authorities.
j. G. Hall Il Co. VS.. 4. III. Campbell.
Decision for defendant for costs.
The following cases additional were
decided by Judge Sweetland in the Dis
trict Court today:
Gardner L. Miller vs. Mary A. O'Don.
nell. Decision for defendant for costs.
Joel @. Palmer VS.. Walter +. Sayles.
Decision for plaintiff for $40.
before Judge sweetlGnd.l
Charles Edmonds vs.. Raymond ii. Place
and wife. Judgment rendered for the
plaintiff for S27. 81 and costs.
Julius Eckenberg VS.. Charles T.. Childs.
Petition OF plaintiff for leave to sell goods
of defendant denied.
Daniel j. Mayler VS.. Henry l.. Gilbert.
Decision for plaintiff for s127.
APPELLATE DIVISION.
The following rescript was filed today:
Annie II. Sullivan vs.. jeremiah p. Sui
livan. Petition denied and dismissed and
respondents motion by way of cross petit
ton granted.
A new trial will be asked for in the case
of Alvah Il. Warren VS.. Arthur T.. Humes
for alienation of wife's affections. In two
former trials the jury gave verdict foi
plaintiff; the amount OF the last verdict
being $500.
Colonel Arnold, attorney for the New
York, New Haven IL Hartford Railroad
Company, has filed a copy of the teSti'
mony taken in the suit of Arthur p.
Sumner, administrators against the cor
poration named. This suit, it will be
remembered, was brought in behalf oi
the widow and children of an Armenian
killed at the horse shoe walk in Central
Falls. The case has been tried twice, the
jury at the first trial gave verdict foI
Sumner amounting to $500, and at the
L. s.I q