The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-10-11
A Long Trial in the Appel
late Division Today.
Albert n. keens Sues TO Recover on
a Note for $1,000.
A Dull Day I'm the Common Pleas d.
vision-OnIy One Case Heard.

Before Chief Justice Matteson and JUS
tices Tillinghast and Rogers was tried
this morning the suit OF Albert III. Keene
against w. Weeks and Arthur M. Aldrich,
co-partners as Weeks Il Aldrich, and
Samuel w. Aldrich for the recovery OF
$1,000.
This hearing was held under the new
practice providing for the waving OF jury
trials.
Albert III. Keene, the plaintiff, took
the witness stand and testified that John
W. Weeks, one of the defendants, came
10 him in October last and asked for the
loan of $1,000. The witness asked for
what purpose the money was TO be used
and was told that ii was to be put into
the business of Weeks Il Aldrich.
On October 26 900 was given Mr..
Samuel w. Aldrich as guarantee for the
same. In return for the balance writ
ten acknowledgement was given that
1853 was to be paid on Nov. 10.
This latter was paid on the day named.
Mr.. Angel OF Cooke IL Angel, counsel
for the defendants, cross-examined the
witness and got him to admit that the
note, which had been put in evidence,
had been changed, aud that the interest
called for on II was six per cent. instead
of 10 per cent as il was At first. The wit
ness claimed he did not change the note.
III tne reBulaT OTuef OF prosecuting tHcro
was break at this point as the question
came up whether counsel for the defend
ants had done right in cross-examinin ing
witness as TO he alteration of the note.
w. X. Tillinghast, counsel for the plair-
tiff contended that they had not, and the
chief justice agreed with him.
stephen ". Cooke, for the defendants,
claimed that the plaintiff had introduced
the note in evidence and the fact OF its
being altered was a proper thing to bring
out By cross-examination. He also argued
that II was the duty of the plaintiff TO
explain the alteration and the reason for
IL.
After long discussion on this point a
majority OF the court sustained the argu-
ment of counsel .or the defen dant and
the taking of the testimony was resumed.
Mr. Keene said that the note remained
In his hsnds'but a few days after Novem-
ber TO- and that he did not see 1t again
said that between October 26 and Novem-
ber 10, Mr.. Weeks called and said he was
organizing stock company 10 put gas
generator on the market. Tfe,e genera
tors Mr.. Weeks had told m could be
for rs, but he said he atterward found
they cost nearly 81 to make. They sold
for 81 wholesale, and Ga retail, and Mr.
Weeks said 200 of them were being made
a week, and advised Mr.. keene TO take
stock. Finally the latter took 200 shares
in return for the note OF $1,000 that Weeks
& Aldrich had given him. The stock be
received was not treasury stock in the
concern, as he was led TO believe it. He
subsequently got his note back after at
tachments had been placed on the gem
orator company's property. Mr.. heene
claimed the note was changed In the pres
ence OF Messrs. Weeks & Aldrich.
Testimony was introduced to show that
the defendants knew nothing OF the
changing of the note, and their counsel
argued that Mr.. Keene had made new
contract with the generator company, 10
which.they were not parties and while
he claimed TO sue on 10 per cent note,
he still retained his certificate OF stock in
the company.
At the rising OF the court for the noon
recess, the case was still under considera-
| tion.
James f. Henry vs.. John Jenckes and
| George Van Dye VS.. same. Defendants de-
murrer TO plaintiffs declaration overruled
and cases remanded to common pleas di-
| vision.
Alexander A. Walter and wife VS.. job
Wilbur. Decree entered by consent OF
all parties providing that complainants
may recover their property by the pay
ment to defendant OF the sum OF S154O,
and IL said sum is not then paid, then
| the title TO the property mortgaged to re-
| main absolutely in the defendant.
COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.
| There was no new case ready for tria
in the common pleas division OF the Su'
| preme Court this morning.
The taking OF testimony in the suit o
James Conklin against the Providence
and National Worsted Mills for the recov
cry of S25, 600 for injuries alleged to hav'
been received while in the employ OF th
defendant, was concluded this forenoon
ana Frederic Hayes, counsel for the de
fendant began his closing argument. III
was followed by Edward l.. Cannon TO
the plainiff.