The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-02-07
Arguments Concerning
Common Carriers.
Hearing on Providence Ware
house Co. Petition.
Denials In Railroad Suit defendants
Submit to Judgment.

Before CT lief Justice Matteson and JUS
tices Stiffness and 1illinghast was heard
I'm the appellate division OF the Supreme
Court this morning the petition OF the
Providence Storehouse Company VS.. the
Providence and Worcester Railroad Com
pany for q new trial. The plaintiff sued
the defendant to recover $40. 75ior storage
on certain goods placed in its ware
house by the defendant. In the trial OF
the case i'm the lower branch OF the court
the plaintiff company lost its case.
Samuel /. Douglas, who appeared for
the plaintiffs, ARGUED that the testi-
mony showed that the railroad company
had stored a lot OF goods in the store
house OF the plaintiff and that as the
former were responsible parties no at
tempt was made for sometime after the
goods were unclaimed for the storage
charges and that the plaintiff company
had. no right, under the law of the State,
until recently to sell the goods in order
TO recover the storage charges.
Walter r. Angel, counsel for the de-
PENDANT, argued hat when the railroad
company placed the goods i'm the custody
of the plaintiffs the latter paiu freight
charges and then became custodian for
the owner, and the railroad company's
responsibility altogether ceased. lie
cited a decision where a carrier by water
had left goods with a warehouseman and
1t was found that the goods were worth a
great deal more, han the storage value
and when sold the carrier sued to re-
cover for the none in excess of the
storage charges received by the ware
house man and the court held the latter
held the goods and any money received
for them in trust for the owner and the
carrier had nothing to do with them.
After reviewing the claim made hat the
non-negotiable receipts given Tor the
goods did not affect the MISTER in dis.
pute, claimed that the warehouse COM
pany could not claim to act as agent for
the de endant for it had paid the freight
n charges on the goods, which ii must
AVE done as agent for the owner.
Mr.. Douglass, in reply TO Mr.. Angel,
dwelt upon the fact that the reason the
goods were put in the warehouse was the
crowded condition OF the railroad COM
pany's freight houses, and wanted to
know what right the defendants had TO
use the plaintiffs property without pay
ing for the use of the same. lie argued
that the object in giving the non-nego-
table receipts was 10 hold the company
liab bic for the storage of the goods.
In answer To a question by Judge Sti-
ness as to why the warehouse company
paid the freight charges he said this was
simply for the convenience of the owner
TO have all the charges handy when the
owner might call for his goods. The
court held the matter for Amusement.
COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.
The testimony for the defence in the
case OF John Healey against the New
York, New Haven X Hartford Railroad
Company, pending in the common p cas-
oiivsIon, was taken this morning. Claim
agent Hobbs of the defendant company
testified as to the circumstances under
which the release was alleged TO have been
given by Healey to the defendants. He
said that the plaintiff rad the release
read to him and that Healey made his
mark to it. Witness dened that the plain
till was ever old that the $3.50 paid him
was for his wages from June 10 To the
end of the year.
MIR. Hobbs was asked to compute the
amount of money that would he due to
Healey from the dates named and did so.
He said the plaintiff would have received
1873 DAYS wages, at Sl.95, which amounted
TO $3.50. 80.
On cross examination BY Mr.. Farker
witness denied that he ever had q CONVEX
sation with Healey in which he, the wit
ness, asked 20 much Healey wanted to
take to settle the case CT hat Healcy said
81 would not 90 through what ! have
one for less than $4,000" Mr.. Hobbs
stated the highest claim Healey ever
made was $500, and when this sum was
fixed the witness told Hea.ey that the
company was not legally responsible, as
the accident was the re ult OF the care
lessness of a fellow servant and any money
paid would be given as gratuity.
The release, Mr.. Hobbs said, was slowly
and clearly read to the plaintiff and he
was certain that Mr.. Healey perfectly
understood the settlement and that Healey
had asked for work several times and APP
piled to the witness to use his influence
to get him a job on a passenger train.
In redirect to Mr. Arnold the witness
testified there was nothing one at any
time te- deeeitfullv imposed IN Healeg in
regard TO the release, nor had the latter
ever claimed there was, though Mr..
Hobbs had seen him very often after the
release.
Charles Il. Gunnison, assistant pay
master OF the New York, New Haven 4
Hartford Railroad, testified hat in No
vemher, 1893, he was a witness TO the
signing OF a release by Healey ana that
the same was read to the latter.
DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED To JUDGMENT.
In the case Of Edward Adamson VS..
George II. stayner, Jr., ~ Company. the
defendants in the common pleas division
OF the Supreme Court this morning, sub
mitted to judgment for the plaintiffs for
$500 and costs.
II. Il. Vance and {. J. Farnsworth were
attorneys for the plaintiff and Wilson *
Jenckes represented the defendants.