The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-09-20
HANAVAN WAS
GIVEN JUDGMENT.
He Was Sued For Money Loaned
by Orne.
Court Took the View That Debt Vas
Contracted FIR Gambling.

Frank Orne- sued John Hanivan TO re-
cover $40 that he claimed he had loaned
the latter. The case was tried ia the
civil division of the District Court this
noon and onoe was nonsuited because
Judge Sweetland was convinced from tho
testimony submitted by the plaintiff that
the money was loaned for the purpose of
gam bling.
The testimony In the case was q bit
spicy and some Of the plaintiffs s WITNESSES
were a bit disappointing In their state
ments, Judging by tho rather sharp way in
which such witnesses were handled by tho
plaintiffs counsel
Mir. Orne testified that part of
the money was loaned In place in
Olneyville whers there was a
roulette wheel, but the greater part was
loaned at another time.
On cross-ex animation tho plaintiff got
q bit mixed at Attorney John W. Hogan S
questions. and first admitted that he let
the defendant have the money in tho
gambling place to play with. an q that the
defendant bad agreed to share the profit
with him.
Attorney John G. Quinn got the plain
tiff Strengthened out on this point. ana he
testified the money was loaned TO the de-
fendant and that there was no agreement
10 share possible profits.
In response to further questions by Mr..
Hogan, Mr.. Owen said Mr.. HaDivan was
working for him AT tho time tho money
was loaned ard continued To work for
him the following week and two days of
the one succeedlre that week. He, the
plaintiff, was not standing by the wheel
when Hanivan was playing but was
standing few feet away.
Edward D. Keith testified that the
night of the visit TO the gambling place
the four persons left Orne's place about
IL :3U o'clock in the morning. 1t was "a
..,,I IL
us take walk up to the wheel " There
was quite n gathering In the room and
witness. when asked by Mr.. Quinn
whether Hantvan lost or won, said, Il
guess he came out broke,
Witness played with the roulette wheel
with the other. Mr.. Quinn also asked
Keith If mo was sure Mir. Orne knew
what Hanivan meant when the latter
said TO take "a walk 60 the wheel. The re-
ply was: well, you could not DO out in
Olneyville long and not KNOW
Counsel was not disposed To drop this
line of questioning so he asked "How
many people arc there in Olneyyille who
don't know OF the existence of the wheel
you refer tor" Keith replied possibly two
or three or "a thousand.
"How many people are there in Olney
yille? continued Mr.. Quinn.
a. bout 10 COO, " was tie reply.
And do you mean to say there are not
more people than you state WHO know
nothing OF the existence of that wheel Y'
"Ihey must 1--we very far up, " was Mr..
keith's response.
In reply TO Mr. Hogan Keith said he
heard Hanivan soy 20 Orne that he would
divide his winnings with him. but TO
that offer Orne made no reply. Orne and
Hanivan had been playing awhile to-
gethor.
Another witness told story concern
In, ha aff huf
that told by Keith.
Mr. Hogan asked TOR non.suit on the
ground that under tho statutes money
loaned for the purpose OF gambling could
not be recovered.
Mr.. Quinn argued that tho testimony
did not show that Mr.. Orno knew the
money he loaned MIR. Hanivan was To be
used in gambling and that part of Ii
| was not used.
Judge Sweetland viewed the testimony
| in different manner than Mr. Quinn,
| and granted tho non suit.