The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-10-23

police officers to prove that the premises
occupied by the defendant at Byron
street was a place OF resort for persons OF
bad moral character.
NOT GUILTY.
After considering the testimony in the
case of the State VS.. Bernard Collins q
very few minutes, the jury brought in
verdict of not. guilty. This is the Foster
nuisance case In which considerab bic
peculiar testimony was given by wit
Desses both for the State and the defend
ant.
VERDICT FOR THE DEPENDANT.
The jury in the case of Joseph V. Shea
han, administrator, vs. the Union Rail-
road Company, this morning, brought
in verdict in favor for the defendant.
The plaintiff was the administrators on
the estate of Mary Holmes who was killed
in East Providence by an electric car
on August, 1894.
THE BUSINESS DID NOT PAY.
The suit of Frank Van Ralte against
Albert Benari, to receive $1,000 for an
alleged breach OF contract, was tried
before Judge Rogers and jury today.
The plaintiff. who carries on q ticket
selling business at Weybosset street,
claims that the defendant, in consders-
tion of the plaintiffs obtaining lease
OF more room in the same office and his
taking care of the business, agreed to
stock up the newly leased premises with
fine cigars and tobacco. The business
was to continue one year. from June 1,
1895, and the plaintiff was to receive %
per cent. of the profits.
The business was run about seven
weeks when Benari, seeing that no pro-
fits had been realized, nor were any in
sight, sold the stock in the store to one
Smith. This the plaintiff did not like,
as he was left to pay the larger office
rent caused by the new lease, and he Is
now trying to recover the sum above
named.
When the testimony for the plaintiff
was all in Walter III. Barney, attorney
for the defendant, moved for non suit
on three grounds, namely, that the agree
ment came within the statute OF frauds,
the original being entered into on the
last Sunday in May, and not to be ter
minated within year; secondly, that
| the agreement was entered into on Sun
| day, lastly that no damage was shown.
j. Jerome Hahn, counsel for the de-
| fendant, claimed that the agreement did
not come within the statute OF frauds.
Judge Rogers decided as there was in
| the written memorandum of the agree
! ment contained q provision that the con-
tract should terminate In case of the deaf n
OF either party he thought the statutes
of frauus did not apply to the case. He
also ovevruled the point made in regard
to the agreement being made on Sunday,
such appearing to him from the testi-
| mony not to be the fact.
MIR. Hahn made long argument on the
point of the damage to his client, claim
ing that the two months, during which
the business was run, namely, July and
August, were always dull months in the
cigar trade, and 1t was fair to presume
that his client was damaged by the non
fulfllment OF the agreement entered into
by the defendant. He also argued his
client, IL the agreement was put aside,
was entitled to some compensation for
his services, but the Court said 1t would
charge the jury differently.
APPELLATE DIVISION.
The following cases were heard by Chief
Justice Matteson and Justice Tillinghast
today:
Edwin Martire VS.. Thomas Briefly. Sub.
mitted on briefs.
Aaron Stans VS.. Frank Il. Cshoone. To
be submitted on briefs.
Sarah T.. Dsrden, =. A. VS.. John II.
Adams. Plaintiffs petition for new trial
| heard.
Nicohlss McCloskey We. Charles p. Moies.
Plaintiffs petition for new trial heard.