The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-03-05
BRISTOL RUBBER co. SUED.
A Foreman Seeks Damages Because Of
His Discharge.

hiS bioSnaiSSs
Before Judge Wilbur and Jury was
tried in the common pleas division today
the suit of Starr L. Booth against the
National India Rubber Company OF Bris-
tol to recover damages for alleged breach
of contract.
The plaintiff testified that from 1865
until April, 1895, he had been employed
by National Rubber Company of Bristol
and its successor the National Indis Rub
Ter Company, and was for some years fore
man OF the rubber hose room at the COM
pany's mills. On Nov 30 1894, he claimed
the company had hired him for one year
at a salary Of $500 but in March, 1895, be
was informed that he must work for e
day. MIR. Booth further testified that
he continued TO perform his duties as
usual until the 4th day of April, 1895,
but during The time between the date OF
the failure OF the defendant company to
perform its agreement and the latter date
he had not drawn his wages. On April
Mr.. Coyle, superintendent OF the
W orks, sent for the witness and asked
him what was the trouble!in his room.
The witness replied nothing and then Mr..
Coyle asked why he had not taken his
salary from the Office, to which a reply
was given that ii was not the salary he
had been engaged to work for. Then Mr..
Coyle told him he must take his money
by p. m. that day. or he must get
through the following Saturday night.
lie refused to accept the money, but final
ly did take the money giving receipt for
IL on account. He was discharged and
though he made several attempts to get
emp oyment again from Mr.. Colt, the man
ager of the company, the latter finally
told him he could do nothing for him
having put Mr.. Coyle in charge of the
works.
Mir. Booth also testified he had tried to
get work at other rubber manufactures
but had been unsuccessful and that he
had made arrangements for the carrying
on of a florists business during his spare
hours, and by the failure of the COM
pany 10 pay him the salary agreed upon
he lost s400 laid out on the purchase of
plants of costly kind.
On cross examination by Attorney y.
l.. Bosworth the witness stated that the
agreement by which he was hired by the
year was first entered into in 1883 while
the late Isaac Il. Williams was superin-
tendent of the company. On the expira-
tion OF the first year Mr.. Williams had
told him as long as he stayed with the
company and worked for its interests he
would be hired by the year. There had
been no formal confirmation or rejection
OF this agreement after the death of MIR.
Williams.
The witness claimed that $1,000 was a
small sum TO fix his loss at, as he consid
cred his discharge had affected his repu-
tation in the line of work in which
he has so long been employed with so
much success.
The agents of the company deny that
there was any contract between the COM
pany and the plaintiff by which it was
compelled to keep him engaged for any
particular length of time.
Superintendent p. III. CoYle testified
that he had appointed another man in
charge OF the department over which
the plaintiff formerly presided because of
poor work done under the atter's direc-
ton. The witness was very sharply cross
examined by Judge Henry w. Hayes,
counsel for the plaintiff.
WIDOW DIsCLAIMs RESPONSIBILITY.
Mary Y. Smith was defendant in suit
the trial of which was tegun before
Judge Rogers this morning, brought by
tie smith Granite Company to recover
S1l0 for memorial tablet placed ON the
grave of her late husband, Mowry Smith,
who did at LIMERICK sometime ago. The
plaintiff company claims that the tablet
was purchased by Mrs. Smith and to be
paid for by her. On the.other hand Mrs.
Smith claims that the company agreed
that the money shouli\come from the es-
tete OF her late husband.
Mowry Smith, over whose remains the
memorial was placed, died, leaving an es-
tate worth 500, 900. 10 his widow he lett
farm of 1000 acres in LIMERICK and the
interest of $4,000 per year during her life;
the balance OF the property was given to
Obadiah Smith a resident of a Western
State. Mrs. Smith contested the will, spd
1t is understood, as the result of COM
promise received $4,000.
Elisha ii. Mowry represented the plain
ot tnI axFt nj
the defendant.
The ;ury sfter brief consultation OF
the evidence brought in a verdict in IA
vor of the defendant.
PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE IN ORDER.
The docket of uncontested petitions for
divorce will be In order on Monday next
in the appellate division of the Supreme
Court, and no other matters are down for
hearing in that division next week.
The last will and testament of Mary
Lynch was formally approved Of in Judge
Milbur's court by a jury today, James
Lynch, the appellant, having withdrawn
all opposition, the will being probated.
The case of Mary Lindsay VS.. Division
No. II, A. o.. H., which was on the
calendar of the common pleas division
today was passed by consent of counsel.
The jury in the case OF Thomas Il.
WEIGH against Officer Hardness of Central
terday afternoon.
CIVIL CASES IN DISTRICT COURT.
The following cases were decided in the
civil division OF the district court today:
John M. Dean Company VS.. Frank +.
Ladd. Decision for plaintiff for si5 and
costs.
Drake Payson & Whittier Electric Com
pany VS.. Medbury Ewell q Company. De-
cision for the plaintiff for 90 10.
stephen III. Brownell VS.. Harold Il. Mar
tin. Decision for tie plaintiff for $3.50
and costs.
Ensign II. Nixon VS.. James p. Small.
Decision for plaintiff for $40 and costs
garnishee for chattels set forth - his
affidavit.
O. T.. Barrows vs. G.. u. Burlingame.
Decision for plaintiff for $685. and costs.
Patrick Ganley vs.. Michael Kelleher.
Decision for plaintiff for s3C and costs.
Pierce ~ Company vs.. Frederick Clarke
ct al. Decision for the plaintiff against
defendant Rowland for $50 and costs and
for the defendant Clarke.
james Barlow We. II. /. Mutual Live
Stock Insurance Company. Decision for
plaintiff for S75 and costs.
Henry A. Aldrich VS.. Fred n. l.ibbey.