The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-11-30
So Lawyer Williams Contends In His Effort
10 Secure New Trial.
JURY AWARDED PLAINTIFF $40o
Campbell Companys Attorney Argues That Court
Should Have Granted a Non-SuIt--Hls Con-
siucton Of the Declaration in the Case.

Briefs were submitted to the Appel
case of Silas II. Dyer VS.. Campbell Ma
chine company on defendants petition
for a new trial. The second introduce
tory paragraph of the defendants brief
states that Seldom has n case been
tried in which was apparently so little
understood by the court and counsel as
was this case" In the first place the
declaration was an assumpst andwasa a
declaration of a single count. the vital
clause of which was as follows: But
the plaintiff further AYERS that, all
though he continued to work for the
said defendant for, to wit, - weeks
after said 18th day of November, A. D.,
1897 under said agreement as aforesaid,
he has received no compensation for his
said work and labor, although he had
demanded the same. And the plaintiff
further AYERS that since the 1st day OF
December, 1897, up to the date of the
plaintiffs writ, February 1st. 1898. he
has reported regularly each day at said
company's office to be put to work, but
was told there was no work for him.
and was informed that his services
were no longer required. And the
plaintiff further AYERS that at all times
he has performed all matters and
things i'm said agreement contained on
his part to be performed. but that the
said defendant hath not kept and per-
formed its promises and agreements
with the plaintiff made. but hath brok-
en- the same, and is indebted to the
plaintiff in the sum of $500. And though
often requested to pay him said sum,
the said defendant corporation has
never paid the same and wholly ne
elects and refuses so to do
''It will be seen" The defendant claims
'by reading the above quotation from
the declaration and in fact by reading
the entire declaration that the action Is
one surely for wages due and not one
for general damages resulting from
breach of contract and that the only
breach of contract alleged is the fall
ure of the defendant to pay the sum Of
$780,
A jury in Judge Bosworth's court
gave the plaintiff a verdict for S40O
against the defendant From this YER.
diet the appeal was taken on tho
grounds that the verdict was against
the evidence and the weight thereof.
that the verdict was against the law as
applicable to this case. that the pre-
siding justice erred in not granting the
defendants motion for a non suit.
James A. Williams. counsel for the
defendant. i'm addition to the opening
points referred to argues that the fair
assumption from the wording of the
declaration is that the only verdict the
jury could possibly render upon the
declaration would be for the sum of
$3.50 for wages due and unpaid He
further maintained that where a con-
tract of employment is broken by ths
master. the servant must bring an ac-
ton for damages. The defendants 8
claims, that the presiding Justice erred
in refusing to grant motion for a non
suit because the leading authorities
state that an action of this character
cannot be both for services actually
rendered and for damages for the
breach Of the contract but must be for
either one or the other.
The plaintiffs counsel i'm his BRIEF
maintains that everything connected
with the former trial was correct as tho
declaration and that the verdict was
supported by the testimony and i'm ac-
cordance with the judges charge and
was the result Of the due deliberation
of can intelligent jury"