The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-11-04
BIG
LIQUOR BILL.
Was Suei 10 Recover For II on
GrOuni OF Fraud.
Court, After Hearing o c Witness, Di-
recied We dict for Defendant.

Druggist Frank Watson of Narraganscit
Pier and Pcacedale, whose enemies made
serious charges against him last summer
which grand jury did not believe
sufficient on which to base an indictuent,
was defendant in a replevin suit today
ana the case was decided i'm his favor.
The plaintiffs were Morse a. Sinnott ara
they chsrged that Mr.. Watson had two
years aRo concocted big scheme to de-
fraud his creditors.
Albert NJ Williams for whom Morse x
Sinnott brought suit as trustees was the
first witness. 1he plaintiffs claimed that
IN Wow of tho falls representations made
by Watson they had never parted with
the title to their property. Mr.. Williams
testified that in the summer Of 1895 he
saw MIR Watson and tho latter purchased
Of the plaintiff five barrels of whisky
and % cases of bottled goods. The
whisky was to be sent TO Aarragansett
} ier, but Mr. Watson said that as Peace
dale where the other goods ere To go,
was a prohibition town the bottled goods
must b. in plain cases, and billed as glass
ware The firm of Morse ~ Sinnctt
witness said refused to accept the order
as MI Watson's real estate and bank
account were both IN his wife's namt 50
no was sent to tho Pier again to see Mr..
Watson and get note from him endorsed
by his wife.
Mr.. Watson said that he did not find
that necessary in purchasing goods ard
after long talk with his customer MIR.
Williams returned to the plaintiffs store
ana guaranteed the bill himself. The bill
amounted 10 1903. % and Mr.. Watson
failed II pay the bill, so Mr.. Williams had
To stand by his guarantee ana settle.
Some time after the sale Mr.. Wat on
"a 1.t1x 4 Na
liams received a letter from Mr.. Watson
stating that AZ of his creditors had agreed
to accept 90 per cent Of their indebted
ness Mr.. Williams accepted this settle
ment and received check which he
oashed and applied TO his own use as be
had paid the indebtedness Of Watson tC
Morse q Sinnott. Afterward business
man of this city told him that tho goods
Watson had bought of Morss " Sinnoti
had never teen turned over To the assigned
of Mr.. watson but were hidden away In
tho collar of his mothers house.
Judge Bosworth at this point asked
how tie present action in view of the
testimony of Mr. Williams could be main
tanned. j. ID. I5assett who was asslciat' 'd
with John f.. Goldsworthv for the plain
tiffs argued that there htd icon frsuo OH
the part of Watson that the plaintiffs did
not know OF until Mr. Williams had Maid
the bill and now they sued as his trus-
tees
There was considerable discussion on
this uoint, Mr. Basseit making long
argument Co the effect that Mr. Williams
on nay ing the debt lad all the rights the
plaintiff had in the first instance TO fol-
low the property and that now the orig
inal sellers ght bring the action as his
trustee, Mr. Watson having claimed when
the goods were sold his business was in
first rate condition.
Cul. Charles j. Arms who was with A.
B. Crafts as counsel for Watson cited a
number of authorities in support OF the
contention that the plaintiffs could not
maintain their action OF rcnIavin.
Judge Bosworth held that when the
plaintiffs Morse x Sinnott expressly
repudiated Watson's statements and re-
fused To have him as a debtor but instead
accented Williams, who had paid fer the
goods the representations made by Wat
son became immatcria His honor
directed the Jury To give verdict for the
plaintiffs for possession, restoration,
nominal damages and costs.