Pawtucket tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 1890-189?, 1895-06-21
IT COST CARLOS ST.
John (. Good Won His
Case Yesterday.
WAS AN INTERESTING ONE
Decision BY Justice Rogers Given Yes
terday Afternoon.

John Il. Good Of Providence sued Car
los l.. Rogers Of this city, deputy sheriff,
In an action OF replevin, fora store with
It's stock and fixtures and some horses,
that he seized and took possession OF In
1892 at Central Falls, and the trial came
mp before Justice Rogers and q decision
was rendered yesterday. 1t Is the second
trial OF this case, a new hearing having
been granted by the Appellate Division.
1t appears from the testimony that
Daniel Maloney had been In the liquor
and bottling business at Central Falls,
but did not make q success of It. He had
borrowed geo from Mr.. Good, giving two
notes and bill OF sale of his store and
fixtures as security for the payment Of the
notes. But the business continued to run
behind, and the notes were defaulted
when they became due, and at last Sept. 1,
1897, Mr.. Msloney decided that he could
bear up under the load no longer.
30 he came to Providence and surrend-
cred his property to Mr.. Good, who made
an entry OF that fact In bis books at the
time. Maloney had also written a letter
to his clerk, Mr.. Gleason, and the latter
Immediately saw Mr.. Good In relation to
the matter. The result wac that Good
employed Gleason, and Sept. took for
NAL possession OF the shop In Central
Falls.
Sept. 10 Deputy Sheriff Carlos L. Rogers,
with writ Issued out of court In favor of
the Narragansett Brewing Co. went to
Central Falls, and, notwit hstanding the
notice given Mr.. Gleason that Mr.. Good
had entered into possession, took posses
SION, claiming that It was still in the
possession OF Mr.. Mahoney. Thereupon
the action In replevin was instituted.
This case was tried before Justice Rog.
efs short time ago, and q verdect was
rendered In favor of the plaintiff. An ap.
peal was taken by the defendant, lin
which 1t was claimed that In effect the bill
OF sale was mortgage, and that, being q
mortgage, 1t covered only what was
specially mentioned and described In It..
This point was supported by the Appel.
late Division, which ruled that as 1t was
q mortgage and was still In the hands OF
the mortgageor, tho defendant had a right
TO take possession.
Thursday there was Q long argument
upon this subject, In which Mr.. Carroll
contended that, even allowing that the
bill Of sale was only 4 mortgage, the facts
In the case as testified to by witnesses
were that that; the goods were not in
possession Of the mortgageor at the time
of the levy, but were held by the mort.
gagee; and, further, that Mr.. Maloney
bad surrendered all his other goods to Mr..
Good, Introducing the latter to Mr..
Gleason to substantiate this. Mr.. Robin
son, however, contended that, being a
a mortgage only, the things mentioned
could be conveyed.
Justice Rogers ruled, under the decision
OF the Appellate Division, that II 1t Is
shown that tho.property was taken pos
session OF by Mr.. dood, 1t will be under
the mortgage, and that covers only Ger.
tain specific things. iThe language of q
mortgage may be explained, but not added
to. Therefore Mr.. Robinson's contention
was sustained. The jury was accordingly
recalled and the trial proceeded.
Verdict for plaintiff for 81 damages.