The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-02-14

Before CHIEF Justice Matteson anu JUS
tices st mess and ~Tillinghast was heard
the suit of Hanley Hoye q Co., VS.. Thomas
Grimes, administrator on the estate Of
willism McGale.
The amount of the plaintiffs claim Is
si47, the administrator or his counsel,
it i claimed, promised to pay the same.
IL seems that when MIR. McGale died he
let sl6oO personal property and debts
amounting to $500, but there was also
some real estate and on this there were
some MORTGAGES. The real estate, however,
sold for $500 above the mortgages.
Charlss A. wilson, counsel for the ad-
arbitrator, claimed that the present suit
could not be maintained as the plaintiffs
had not presented their claim TO the com
missionets appointed by the probate
court a q the administrators had not yet
filed his report " it'll the same court.
G. IL. German, VINO was counsel for the
pla ntif, contended that the papers in
tbs case showed that there had been in
the hands of tie administrator In the first
llace $500, from the personal property,
N $500 realized from the sale of real
estate, with hut $500 to be taken for the
payment of debts.
The court held the matter for advise
ment.
bhOkEh WANIS HIS CoMmioclON
Broker Herbert W. Atwood's suit against
Robert McCardell to recover Sl65 alleged
to be due for commission on the exchange
OF certain properties was tried before
Judge Wilbur and a jury this morning.
The testimony for the plaintiff was to
the effect that Mr.. McCaruell had engaged
him to sell his grocery business. That
in the course OF time Mr.. Atwood met
John Davidson, whose wife. Hattie L.
$500 L. aA.la~t
In East Providence, and McCardell agreed
to give his grocery business and $3.50 in
cash for the East Providence real estate.
There was q hitch in the trade, howev-
er, and whether this wss due to Mr.. Nc
Cardell or MIR. Davidson was not very
clear, and the trade was never completed.
When the taking OF testimony on the
part Of the plaintiff was finished j. W.
Hogan. who represented the defendant,
asked that a verdict might be directed on
two grounds. These were that the trade
on which the commission was to be paid
had not been coDsummatet and because
the testimony Above that there was a
bargain TO transfer lands and hat this
not being In writing came within the
statute of frauds. Dealing with this lat
ter point Mr.. Hogan claimed that no con-
tract had been made that could be en-
forced by the parties.
Stephen A. Cook, Jr., counsel for the
akatt VIM hh0 ~ WINS
entitled to his commission the moment he
brought the two parties to an understand
ing and agreement.
Judge Wilbur denied Mr.. Hogan's mo-
tion and the latter then stated the
grounds OF his defence, which were that
there being no sale or transfer made
through the agency of Mr.. Atwood that
gentleman was not entitled to recover.
DEMURRERs ovERRULED.
In the case OF Harry b. Ellis VS.. Nathan
Il. Waldron ct al. an opinion was handed
down in the appellate divisionhy Mr.. JUS
tice Tillinghast overruling the demurrers.
MISS oILRoY GETS THE BANK DEPOSIT
In the case OF Peoples Savings Bank VS..
Catherine A. Gilroy the following rescript
has been flied in the appellate court:
ave do not think that the gift OF the
savings bank book causa mortis to the
respondent, Maggie Pagan, is established
by the evidence.
ga decree may be entered for the pay
men OF the fund TO the respondent, Cath
crime A. Gilroy."
This case, II will be remembered. was
tried the other day and the testimony
showed 1890 was in the BAN in. the names
of Patrick Is. McCourt and Miss Gilroy
TO he drawn by either OF them. Mr..
McCourt died at the Rhode Island Hos.
pital and his funeral took place from the
home OF Mrs. Maggie Pagan, to whom he
had given the bank book before going "a
the Institution named.
BILL NOT MULTIFAR1oUs.
A rescript in the ease OF George W. VII
Hams et al, W. William n. Herrick, tn,
language OF which was as follows, hai
filed today in the appellate division OF tn,
Supreme Court.
1.-THE court Is OF the opinion that tn,
bill IL not mullifarious. It's. purpose IL e
determine the rights OF the complainant
I'm the estate Of Amos Olney, deceased.
and for this purpose IL Is iminateria
whether the estate Is in the hands Of tn,
trustee or the administrator.
ss1he court s also Of the opinion tba