The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-04-24
VERDICT SHOULD STAND.
Croft and Company Opposes New Trial
of His Case Against DewS.
Case Has Been Before Two IurleS Both Of
Which Found For Plaintiff.

The case Of Rowland Croft. Sons ss
Co. vs. Frederick =. Dews, assignee,
was submitted to the appellate court to-
day ON briefs on the attendants peti-
tion for a new trial. The defendant al
leges the verdict was against the evil
dence. The case has been before two
juries and the appellate court after
verdict in plaintiffs favor i'm the first
trial granted defendants petition FOR
a new trial.
Dexter Il. Potter and Alfred :. John
son in their brief. say This c%drt had
said I'm the case of BeltiC vs. Thomp'
son, i6 r. L., y. 10. that where the tes'
timony Is very contradictory and suc'
that different minds, considering IT,
might fairly come to different conclu-
sions "A new trial should not be grant
ed"
when the case at bar was before the
court on the former petition y appears
To the plaintiffs that the cocEt had ah-
andoned this well-establshed doctrine
and adopted rule that should read
substantially as follows; If the court
i'm reviewing would have come To- -
different conclusion from that arrived
at by thc jury, the verdict-F-tii-e -ee-sat
aside and this. Notwithstanding the
fact that the jury saw all of the Wit
nesses and had opportunities OF JudS"
ing which are denied the court.
After stating most of the facts tes"
titled TO by the defendant the court, i'
Its resCript says that We think iI
wholly unreasonable to suppose that
Dews made the statement attributed To-
him as To the financial condition OF the
company The court also said: 'Wo
think II very clear that. upon the testi-
mony aforesaid. but one answer could
reasonably have been given TO these
questions by the jury and that one In
favor OF the defendant"
THE jury was supposed TO look at the
case reasonably the brief says" and
they came to a different conclusion. II
seems 10 us that the court wholly over
looked one very important fact in the
case. ut least we do not see II referred
to In the rescript. Dews had received
letter (then and now on file in the
record stating that unfavorable re-
ports were heard about his financial
standing. He had ordered an increase
in shipments. He N asked to send n
true statement OF his conditions. MI.
Dews did not send any true statement
Tie preferred TO talk. il was perhaps
easier and certainly it would not be
quite as conclusive as evidence. He was
I'm New York and he went over IL Phil
adelphia for no other purpose than 60
u.
said one thing 10 him. Mr.. Dews says
ne did not say that. but something else.
IT MIR Dews said that which Mr.. Croft
SAYS nc did Il was clearly false state
ment aud the plaintiff would be entitled
Go verdict. The jury saw and listened
to the two men. They believed Mr..
croft and they did not believe Mr..
Dews and We submit that there is the
end OF the matter
"Mr. DeWs' statement may be unwlsc.
but he was endeaVoring TO establish
his credit and DO something. MIR Croft
lived in Camden. y. j., and it was quite
distance 10 the town clerks office In
Warwick. ". l., ana Mr.. Dews took his
chances. He may have thought that
he could pull through and then it
would matter little what had been said
Men are constantly taking these chanc-
a.. The bookkeeper OF the plaintiff
heard some of the conversation. He
heard Mr. Crofts say that is all right :
that Is all right. All I want To do is
make sure that what you say is so ana
that my bills will be paid when due at
CO days This 10 some extent corrobn-
rates the plaintiff. There Is no corrob-
Grafton whatsoever OF Mr. Dews' evil
denCe.
a number of recently decided cases
are cited ~ show that there biing evil
dcnce % sustain the verdict the court
should not Interfere. s. W. *. Allen is
counsel for defendant.