The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-06-11

Cosgrove demands, Notwithstanding, a
contract made by him with the petition
srs as to the amount OF his fee, the pay
mentsof the sum OF $1,000 and on account
OF the refusal OF them to agree to his
keeping that sum. Mr.. Cosgrove refused
to pay any OF the money at all TO them,
though they were In great need OF the
same.
The petition concluded with a request
that MIR. Cosgrove be ordered TO pay 1900
forthwith TO the petitioners and to de-
posit the remaining $1,000 in the registry
OF the court until the amount due DIR.
Kean was ascertained by a judicial trib-
unal and that the court determine wtet
amount, II anything, should be allowed
Cosgrove for his servcea
Chief Justice Matteson gave the de-
cision of the court, which was that Mr..
Cosgrove should pay TO the petitioners on
June II, 5000; that be should pay into
the registry OF the court 5000 TO there
remain until the claim of DR.. Kean was
disposed OF. either by final judgment or
agreement OF the parties. And all refer
ence TO any collusion between DIR. Kean
and Attorney Cosgrove, was ordered
stricken from the petition.
II will be noticed that the court only
gave directions as TO what should be done
with $1,000 of the $4,000 received by Mr..
Cosgrove and IL Mr.. and Mrs. Hurst,
wish to get possssieon of the $1,000 Mr..
Cosgrove claims as his fee they will have
to take some further and different action
than they did today.
Cook and Angel represented the petit
tioners.
NEW TRIAL REFUSED.
Chief Justice Matteson mas delivered
the follow ing opinion in the case OF
Andrew Riley Vs. James Shannon: "1he
common pleas division found that the
check sued on was given in part payment
for liquor store; that the defendant,
claimed thatssthe property was not as rep
resented ty the Fla ntiff, and rendered 1t
back that the plaintiff directed the de-
fendant to surrender the store to the
agent of the MORTGAGE. and told the de-
fendant that the check had been ce-
stroyed. On these findings, the court
held that the plaintiff couId not recover.
"We do not review the findings OF fact
by judge OF the common pleas division
when the evidence is conflicting, as in
this case, and there 80 evidence TO support
the findings. Assuming the facts to be
as found by the court, there was virtual
recisioD by the parties of the contract OF
sale, and the court properly held that
the plaintiff could not recover.
"The new testimony, as set forth in the
affidavits submitted, is wholly culmstive,
moreover, no sffidavit of the plaintiff is
filed that he did not know of the ability
of the atlantis to testify to the facts set
forth prior to the hearing. and that he
could not have produced the testimony at
the bearing by the exercise of reasonab bic
diligence. He apparently seeks to ex-
plain his failure TO present the testimony
on the ground that, The plea He'd being
the general issue, he had no notice OF the
evidence, and was surprised by the de-
fendants testimony. IL surprised he
should have asked for continuance, that
he might have had an opportunity to
procure the additional testimony IL he
deemed it important. This he did not
do. Having gone on with the hearing.
and taken. the chances of a decision, it Is
too late after an adverse decision to ask
for new trial for the purpose OF putting
in additional testimony.
"New trial demurred, and caseremitted
to the common pleas division with direc-
tion to enter judgment for the defendant
for costs"
Continued on Page 3.