The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-06-18
TROUBLE OVER SHOES.
A Retail Dealer Claims Goods Were
Wrongfully Taken.

There was but one case tried In the
common pleas division OF the Supreme
Court today. IL was the suit OF Jacob
Abrams against Henry G. Aylesworth OF
the Congdon, Aylesworth Shoe Company.
Judge Wilbur presided
Plaintiff formerly kept one of those nu-
merous shoe stores that are about the
city, in which old shoes are repaired, new
ones sold and still Older ones made to
look something like new ones. His en-
porium was on South Main street, and for
about three years he endeavored to obtain
his share of the trade OF the locality, but
he did not succeed very well and hence
got into trouble. The case was one that
presented about as much conflict OF testi-
mony as could possibly be imagined, the
plaintiff and defendant evidently under
standing very simple matters in an alto
gether different way.
Abrams, the plaintiff, testified that he
had been dealing with the Congdon &
Aylesworth Shoe Company about two
and half years, and that the president
OF that company gave him years credit
TO the amount OF slO0 Oh goods purchased
and that he agreed to pay the company
- or 80 a week, or even larger sum, ac-
cording TO the amount OF goods he should
sell.
A collector came around every week
and the plaintiff had paid at one time all
of his debt to the shoe company but s2O,
On the 18th OF February of the present
year the defendant came into plaintiffs
shop and said he must have the money
due his company. Abram asked him to
wait, but Aylesworth gave a negative re-
ply, and also said that he must have slS
or he would take his goods The plain
tiff then started out TO borrow the money,
but not succeeding he went and made
an assignment. In the meanwhile lot
OF goods were taken out of his store by
the defendant and others. AT this time,
he claimed, only SOS was owing to the
shoe company and the goods taken were
valued at $40.
In cross examination the plaintiff de-
MED that he knew the goods were con
signed TO him and not sold. He said he
could neither read nor write.
Mary Abram, wife of the plaintiff, testi-
fed substantially as her husband did, and
also denied knowing that the goods were
consigned, not sold.
Officer Boss testified that he was at
tracted 10 the shop on the day in question
by the screams of Mrs. Abrams, and he
and officer Willard testified that Deputy
Sheriff Barrows, who was in the store,
claimed to have writ of repleyin.
Attorney j. jerome Hahn, who was
counsel for Abrams in the matter, went
on the witness stand and testified that
Deputy Sheriff Barrows was in the store
when the goods were being taken down
from the shelves and that he claimed TO
have a writ OF replevin,
Henry c. Aylesworfh, the defendant
testified that the goods taken from the
plaintiff were not sold 10 him, but only
consigned, he TO pay the shoe company
all the money he got from sales at the
close OF each week. Also that the goods
were entered as consigned on the books
OF the concern, and that no payments had
been made for two months. The goods
taken from Abrams store, he said, were
worth 80, and all belonged to the Cong
don Il Aylesworth Shoe Company.
j. jerome Hahn was the attorney for
the plaintiff and Clarence A. Aldrich rep
resented the defendant.
The grand jury, owing to the enforced
absence Of one OF its members, were not
able TO report today.