The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-03-23
THAT RANDALL NOTE.
Plaintiff in Case Puts In Testimony
10 Establish II.
Tells Under What circumstances II Came
Into His Hands.

The trial of tho suit of Stephen o.
Randall against the Rhode Island Lum-
Der Company was continued today before
Judge Wilbur and jury. Yesterday the
validity of the note for S3674 53, which is
being sued on, was attacked and most OF
the time today was taken up i'm an effort
TO establish that the note was given To the
plaintiff in good faith.
lt Is claimed by the plaintiff that when
the note was made in May 1894, Edwin
*. Randall, the maker of the note, and
the then treasurer of the defendant COM
pany, was indebted to him in the sum OF
$500, and the note was taken as security
and aS to this amount was not subject TO
any equities existing between tho former
treasurer and the company. That fur
ther advance of $790 was made To the
treasurer, this, IL is admitted, may be
subject to the equities between him and
the company and also that when the
lumber company failed in 1893, claim OF
Edwin X. Randall against it was pre-
sented TO Mr. Baker, the assignee, but
the latter would not allow it. Afterward,
Mr.. Edwin X. Randall, owning nearly all
the stock in the company, made the
note sued on as the easiest way 10 adjust
his claim. This claim, Mr.. Bassett in
his opening statement to the jury today,
said, was an open and notorious one.
Stephen .. Randall, the plaintiff, tes-
titled that he had been for Is years in
Perry a. Co.'S banking house, and that in
April, 1894, Edwin X. Randall was owing
him $500 and as no did not settle the
claim witness began dunning Edwin,
who finally said he had a note against
the Rhode Island Company, and no would
transfer il. This was agreeable to the
plaintiff, and he took the note for S.S67f. o3
and afterward made further advance OF
$500 Mr. Randall denied he had ever
sl...s 49, lNA 1,.,.,
Der company. In regard To his interviews
with Treasurer Stewart concerning the
note in dispute, Mr.. Randall said he sent
a notice to the lumber company and the
interviews resulted, Mr.. Stewart taking
a copy of the note and asking what the
money was used for. to which witness re-
piled that he did not know.
On cross-examination witness to Mr..
Baker said that the money supplied TO Mr..
Edwin X. Randall was most of IL fur
nished during his troubles with Mr..
Angel. The money was loaned To Mr..
Randall not TO the company. The $500
was loaned in different sums, but witness
kept no memoranda Of the sums loaned,
nor could he fix particularly the dates
Some of the money loaned was borrowed
by witness from his brother, A. w. Ran
dali. When Mr.. Baker asked for the dates
the money was borrowed from the latter
witness was not able To give the informa-
find out from the notes on which the
money was borrowed. Mr.. Randall said
he did not have the notes. Then said Mr..
Baker 'you can get. them from youi
brother.s - 81 would, :, said witness. fl
could reach him. - "Where is heY' asked
Mr. Baker. The reply was In Utica,
Humboldt county, California, and IL
was evident TO counsel that the inforna-
tion about dates would not be furnished.
Witness said some of the money loaned
was obtained from Judge Harris and Mr..
Baker wanted to know If the money was
Judge Harris own. Yes, replied the
witness; then Mr. Baker said, " "Fortu-
nate lawyer Mr.. Bassett quickly said,
"Oh, he's Judge" The witness did not
give many dates and he was sharply cross.
examined as to when he came into poses
sion of the note The plaintiff denied
that he had ever told Mr.. Stewart that he
did not know how long Il. X. Randall had
the note before il came into the possession
of the witness. 1t was his custom, witness
said, To- keep memoranda of his loans
to the formcr treasurer in a pocket book.