The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-03-25
FOR THE DEFENDANT.
Judge Wilbur Directs Jury 10 Find
Verdict In Randall Case.
E. r. Randall ss Treasurer Had no Right
TO Make Note Sued On.

The trial of Stephen o. Randalls suit
against the Rhode Island Lumber Com
pany, came to sharp end this morning
when Judge Wilbur directed the jury TO
find for the defendant corporation. His
Honor reached "A decision TO thus dispose
OF the case after full arguments by conn
sci for both the plaintiff and the defend
ant, and "a consultation of the authorities
on the motion OF counsel for the defendant
TO direct verdict on the ground that the
note was void, the treasurer OF the lum-
ber company, T. X. Radall, having no
authority to make the note sued on.
A. A. Baker, of counsel for the defends
ant, produced a large number OF authors
tiles which he claimed held that "a note
made by treasurer OF corporation paya-
BILE to himself was absolutely void unless
he had special authority from the corpor-
alton to make the note.
Mr.. Bassett In behalf of the plaintiff,
argued that the authorities did not go as
far as Mr.. Baker claimed they did. for
they only held that party taking such u
note was Obliged TO see that there was
authority for the issuing OF the note. l5
had been shown, he said, that the bylaws
of the corporation gave the treasurer tho
right TO make notes and also that there
was valuable consideration given from
the note.
Mr.. Baker asked Mr. Bassctt IL he
| claimed any special authority had every
been given +. r. Randall to make tho
| note and Mr.. Bassett gave negative
reply. Mr.. Baker then argued that the
| text books the decisions of the courts In
I, New York and Nebraska all held that u
| treasurer could, not in the absence OF
| special authority TO do SO, make note
| payable To himself from which he was To
| derive benefit.
Mr.. Bassett thought it rather late tn
| raise an objection as TO tho validity of tho
note to which Mr.. Baker replied that tho
| defendant could not tell whether the
note was absolutely void or not until the
| plaintiff had put in their case for tho latter
| might have shown special authority t1
so do Judge Wilbur did not think this
an important point. MIR. Baker ther
again argued that the note was abso
| lutely void.
Judge Wilbur cited the decision of Chief
Justice Waite of the United States
Supreme Court to the effect that cashier
| of bank though having full control OF
its affairs could not take advantage OF his
position To get money from the bank him.
| self without special authority from those
| directly interested In the concern. His
Honor then reviewed the testimony in the
case before him, the making of the note,
the delay i'm presenting it to the company,
the fact that the treasurer had transferred
IL To his uncle, that claim on which
| part OF the consideration for the note was
| founded had been rejected by the assigned
of the company and ..held that 1t would
| seem that the holder had been remlss III
important matters.
Mr. Bassetts exception was noted tn
the ruling but his request that His Honor
declare the note absolutely void and that
the case 90 To the Appellate Court On the
validity of the note as 1t stood were not
complied with by the court.
The jury which were absent from the
court during the arguments Of counsel
were brought in and their verdict was
given in accordance with instructions.
The Appellate Court will be called upon
to pass an opinion on this important
point. s. $. Lapham was associated with
Mr. Baker as counsel for the defendant.
The amount of the note sued on wal
$3647. 53.