The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-04-22
Another Trial Wanted by
Old Colony Road.
BeavercOmbe Loses the Suit
Against NOrcrOSS Bros.
The Relative Value of a Boiler and
Lathe Discussed.

The first case heard in the appellate di-
vision of the Supreme Court today was
that of C.. Warren Tuttle against Abram
Crowell and it involved some interesting
points.
The plaintiff sued to recover such dam
ages as the court would allow him for the
sale OF an engine lathe that the plaintiff
had left in the defendants possession but
which. the plaintiff had sold. Mr.. Tut
tie testified that he had let the defendant
use lathe valued at 500 and that the lat
ter had sold the same and never told him
what he got for it or paid him any of the
money received.
The cross examination of Mr.. futile
brought out the facts that Mr.. Crowell
was forced ct one time to make an assign
ment, that the witness wife held q Sec
ond mortgage on the Crowell PROPERTY
for 5000, the money having been furn-
ished ty Mr.. Tuttle and that there was a
previous mortgage on the same property
to John Heathcote for $500. Mr.. Tuttle
denied that whe1 he bought Crowells
property for Fl at the assignee's sale, he
bought it for Crow ii, but admitted he
permitted the defendant to continue in
possession and denied that he knew the
lathe in question had been exchanged
for boiler.
In reply to a question by Nathan w.
TiIlinghast of counsel for the defendant,
witness adSSitted that the language in
the mortgage to his wife of all property
that might hereafter be in the defend
ants shop would include boiler taken
In place of the lathe.
Abraham Crowell, the defendant, testi-
fed that in order TO conduct his business
successfully 1t was necessary for him to
move TO different place, from when he
had previously. carried X on. That he
had exchanged the lathe for boiler be-
cause there was no power in the building
into which he had moved. The lathe in
dispute, according to Mr., Crowell, was
not worth s400 as claimed; three men had
placed three different values upon il, one
Bayiug II was worth s150; another 1855,
and another 600. He accepted the latter
figures as It's vaiue and the boiler put in
was worth over s1S5. John Heathcoie,
the bolder of the frs. mortgage, had APP
proved OF the exchange OF the lathe for
the boiler.
In answer to O question by his counsel
as TO the comparative market value OF
the lathe and the boiler his reply was
that boilers were always in demand,
while in regard TO the lathe il was a large
one and of old design.
James J.. Jenclls, counsel for Mr.. Tut
tie, turned the point of the last reply by
asking IL second hand boilers aid not
rapidly deprsciate in value, 20 which
question the Witness gave an affirmative
reply. ,..,. .
the counsel in the case, as TO what extent
the plaintiff was damaged by the action
of the defendant, and the court intimated
that as the property had been sold for 81
at the assJg nee sale IT could not see what
more than nominal damages the plaintiff
was entitled to.
Mr.. Jencks, however, contended that
an inventory of the property made before
the assignment showed it to be worth
5000 and claimed that the act of the
plaintiff had greatly reduced the value of
the mortgaged property as the latter
would have been OF great use to the plain
tiff, while tho boiler was no use at all.
The court held the matter for advise
meut.
LONG TIME IN COURT.
There was hearing in the same court
on the defendants petitions tor new
trial in the case OF Lavina W. Chaffee VS..
Old Colony Railroad Company. This case
has been in court for number of years
and there have been two jury trials in
both of which the plaintiff got verdict.
At the first of these Judge Stiness presid-
ed and at the second Judge Rogers. The
Jury at the latter trial gave a verdict for
the plaintiff for $500.
The plaintiff sued to recover damages
for the death OF her husband, who was
killed on September 6, 1890, in front of
the railroad station at Pawtucket. He was
on the plank walk, between the tracks
where the north and south bound trains
pass, HAVING just alignted from train,
when he was struck by an engine going
in an opposite direction.
After the first trial in the common
pleas court the upper court gave q new
trial on the ground that the testimony in
the case showed that the matter OF con-
tributory negligence in the case was a
matter for the court and not the jury to
decide.
Henry w. Hayes. counsel for the de-
fendant company, today argued that there
had been no evidence inirodur ed in the
second trial 20 change the applicability of
the ruling OF the court and that the pre-
siding judge had been guilty of error in
letting the case go TO the jury.
Daniel II. BalIou, counsel for plaintiff,
argued that there was considerable evil
dence introduced ut tho law trial TO
show that the train which struck the de-
ceased could have been stopped i'm time to
have prevented the accident, and that
therefore there was case OF negligence
on the part OF the plaintiff for the jury
to decide.
NoRcRoss BROTHERS NOT LIABLE.
The suit OF Albert III. Besvercombe, a
former Employers, Norcross Brothers, was
decided by nop-snit granted at the
close OF the testimony in the case in be-
half of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sued TO recover the
amount above named for injuries received
by him while at work for the defendants
on the Oskdale building. According to
his story he, on May %. 1895, was sent
to the next story TO the top OF the build
ing TO hama down some plank and that
he, after being hit by plank fell down
an elevator shaft az feet. The claim vas
made that the agents OF the defendants
had carelessiy left the elevator shaft un-
covered though the last time the plaintiff
had seen IL, boarus were LAID over the
mouth Of the shaft. Mr.. Beavercombe
testified today that he had been unable
TO work since the time OF the accident
and that he suffered great pain while at