The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-01-26
PIANOS in COURT
Observation-Disclosures
Before Jury.
One Brought by Defendant in
Strich & Zeidler Case.
The Other by Plaintiffs More Tes-
timony In Slander Suit.

continued today before Judge Wilbur and
a jury. There were three especially inter
esting features in the trial and gooi deal
of time was taken up in arguments on
points connected with these.
Early this morning piano was taken
into Judge Wibur's court room, and after
the members OF the jury had taken their
seats the rubber covering was taken off
the musical instrument, and IL was ex-
planned that this was The piano that Fred
naboney played on when he went to
steinert's store with Mr.. Weidmsn and
the alleged slsnd,r was committed.
The second feature was a motion on the
part of counsel for the defendant, at the
conclusion of the plaintiffs testimony,
that the jurv be directed to return a ver-
dict for the defendant on the ground that
plaintiffs agent went TO defendants store
to have slsnderous remsrks made, and also
practiced deceit. 1t was also claimed by
attorney n. W. Littieheld, the counsel
who had made the motion, that the state
ments complained OF as slsnderous, were
privileged.
Mr.. Gardner, counsel for the plaintiff,
argued that the communication was not a
privileged one and the defendant had not
pleaded it. The failure 10 plead, MIR.
Gardner thought, prevented the defen-
dant from taking advantage of what he
claimed was privileged, rs the general
issue only was pleaded; the pleading of
the general issue only putting in evidence
the truth of the words. He also Ecalleo
the attention of the court TO the repres-
entations made concerning the financial
difficulties of the plaintiff.
Judge Wilbur denied the motion OF a
-verdict- -of-not guilty saying while ne
showing trade talk, ho did not recall any
testimony that would justify the remarks
concerning the finsncial condition of the
plaintiffs.
Attorney NV. Littlefield then addressed
the jury saying it would be shown that
the interview between Mr.. Weidman OF
the plaintiff Hrm was of a different nature
than the plaintiffs had endeavored TO
make out. That the defendant thought
Mr.. weidmsn intended to purchase n
piano, and the remarks made about the
credit of the plaintiff firm applied only TO
the guarantee and was honestly made.
James Lister testified that he pure ha sed
Strich IL Zeidler piano of Mann 81
Eccles and he got tired of 1t and changed
| il after q month for a Steinway which
piano the defendant sold. On cross exam
ination witness said he could tell Stein
way from that sold tin pan over there"
pointing to the piano that was on exhi-
| bition.
Robert Bonner was the second witness
and he described the qualities of good
| piano, chief of which were elastic action
and full roundness Of tone. W. b. Morse,
| civil engineer, testified to the size of the
| Steinert store.
Mark l.. Campbell was the next witness;
| he said that Mr.. Weidmsn came into
Steincrtis store on March 31st and said he
wanted TO buy piano as his wife wanted
one. To this remark the witness pleas
antly SAID then 81 guess you must buy
one" The witness then described what
! took place between himself and Mr.. Weld
man during the lsttor's examination Of
| pianos.
While this witness was giving part
| of bis testimony a second pisno was
brought into the court room and after
the covering mad been removed Attorney
! A. =. Miller of counsel for the defence
called the attention of the court to it,and
| claimed it had been vrongfully broug ut
! iuto the room.
Judge Wilbur asked Mr.. Gardner how the
presence Of the second piano was neces-
! saty.
Mr.. Gardner said that equally without
permission of the court the first piano
! had peen brought into the court room.
MFR. Miller claimed that the piano
brought into court by the defendant was
the one the dispute was over and the de-
fen0snt had the right to show that Il was
in poor condition.
There vas n long discussion over this
matter and Judge Wilbur finally ended
IL by deciding that the in uondo in plain
tin's declaration was not fairly drawn ss
IL claimed that the alleged slsnderous
words were applied to only one piano.
sir. Gardner took an exception to the
ruling OF the court and though there was
no further reference to the second piano
il was left In the court room.
Mr.. Campbell continued his story. lie
denied some statements made by Weld.
man concerning the second interview
when Mr.. steinert was present aud
claimed the remarks concerning the
Sirick & Zleidler piano referred only to
the one that bad been tried by Mr..
Mahoney.
Albert Steinert testified that he took
cbsrgc OF the steiner store here on Jan.
10. 1896. lie denied having done anything
Continued on Page ..