The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-06-20

sion OF the store, under an instrument
which the appellate division OF the court
has construed TO be mortgage, but which
counsel for the plaintiff at q previous
trial claimed was bin OF sale. On De-
cember 10, some time after the plaintiff
took possession OF the store In question,
the defendant attached the property as
belonging to ,Maloney. The only special
feature in the case was whether or not the
defendant could not take possession of
horse and team that was not included in
the instrument made, even IL they had
come into the possession OF the plaintiff.
Thomas Robinson, with whom was as
sociated Claude j. Farnsworth, argued
that, as the instrument In question had
been held mortgage, nothing but
what was mentioned in the instrument
could be held TO be in the rightful pos
session Of the plaintiff. Attorney ii. j.
Carroll argued that as the plaintiff had
possession OF everything given him by
Maloney, the question of whether certain
things were named in the mortgage or not
was immaterial. The court held, that as
the instrument was mortgage, its defects
could not be remedied SO as to include
some articles that were intended to be put
in it, but were not.
The trial of cases on the Attorney Gen
erals docket will be begun tomorrow.
DISTRICT COURT.
There was long calendar Of cases ready
FOR trial in the civil division OF this court
today. The following cases were heard by
Judge Sweetland:
Patrick &. Kellett, whose business lis
getting considerable advertising just
know, this morning brought suit against
Thomas +. Murray, a former agent for
him, for the recovery OF Si9. 49. Kellett
claimed that Murray was instructed to go
TO people and solicit photographs To be
copied and enlarged on condition that par
ties giving the photographs should pay
$3.50 for a frame; no charge would be
made for the picture to go in the frame.
According to the plaintiff, Murray told
the people IL they would let him have
a photograph he would have an enlarged
copy of IL made in the most artistic man
ner and the enlarged photograph placed
I'm chaste and beautiful frame; that it
would be hung on the wall with gold or
silver cord and that they would have to
part with no money whatsoever. Murray
he claimed, took 3S orders and was paid 70
cents for each order and when Kellett
went out to collect the g. 90 for the
frame, patrons claimed they owed moth
ing. Mr.. Kellett was cross examined by
Harry {. Curtis, attorney for the defen-
dant, and said that while Murray had an
agreement to give to customers that
plainly stated that g. 30 was TO be paid
for the frame he neglected TO part with
the - bit OF writin' y or printing. The
queries of Mr.. Curtis in regard to GER
tain entries in the plaintiffs books rather
confused him, SO at the suggestion of
Thomas r. West, Mr.. Kellett's counsel,
the case was continued for one week.
Levi l.. Burden vs. Frank W. Petty.
This was a suit TO recover certain lathes
and machinery used in the manufacture
of buttons. The defendant contended
that there was a partnership existing
between him and the plaintiff. The latter
denied this, but the court was not satisfied
that the two men had no agreement TO
divide the labor, profits and loss in the
manufacture OF buttons, so Judgment
was given for the defendant for costs.
Clarence A. Aldrich for the defendant
and Page d Owen for the plaintiff.
Benjamin Andrews and wife sued Clar-
ence T.. BuTlingame for the recovery OF
the possession of a tenement at 90 Wav-
erly street, and judgment was given in
their favor.
Ellen Parker recovered in the same
manner possession of a tenement at las
Lester treet from Charles V. Perry.
l.. b. Eddy VS.. Frank II. Medbury.
Decision for plaintiff
In the case of Nicola VS.. Teresa Mar
ceello. Decision was for the defendants
for costs
DIR. Frank f.. Mason sued Mary A.
O'Donnell for professional services rem
dered at the time the defendant was in
iured in an accident for which the Union
Railroad Company had settled with her.
Judgement was given for the doctor for
S3i25.
/ Before Associate Justice Ruercket: +:
Alfonso Ricci sued to recover balance
due for the sale of passage tickets to
Ernesto Paone. The plaintiff contended
that the defendant purchased tickets
from him for two adults and child from
Italy and that he still owed part of the
purchase money. Judgment was given
for the plaintifffors171 -
Jennie Healey sued Ellen O'Brien for
services. The case after being heard in
mart was continued for one week i'm order