The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-08-24
UFFORD WON.
Given Judgment Against His Former
Employer, Wilbur
The Dafsndaniln a Potato Case Won---MT,
GIslen Lost His Action


heard in the cayil division OF the Sixth
district court today and some of them
were very interesting. Frank W. Uhord
sued his employer, John ~ Wilbur, 10
recover SIS for wages. Mr.. tnord said
he worked about So days painting
sign. Mr.. Wilbur claimed all the work
the plalntin did on the sign was 10 nail
the DOaTds together. Mr.. Wilbur m
tended 20 vary the customary manner
OF trying differences between workman
and employer. He proposed that the
court examine Ufford as to that indi-
viduais ability to paint an artistic
slsn. For this purpose Wgbur took
plain cards such as are sometimes
used for signs and paints and brushes
To the court so he might demonstrate
the falslty OF the plaintiffs claim 10
be an artist.
Judge Rueckert did not favor such
way or proving~a case and had no idea
OF setting himself up as a critic of old
or modern masters so ne refused 10 let
any painting be done i'm court and gave
Judgment for the plaintiff for $7s.S9
A SUIT FOR RENT.
Joseph w. Smith sued Edward
Okeefe to recover "A balance of Sl2.10
due for rent. O'keefe who did not have
counsel offered two receipts alleged To
have been signed by the plaintiff. The
receipts were for $S and 81 respectively.
Mr.. Smith denied ever signing them
though he said the bills had been made
out by him and left at Okeete's home.
O'Keefe said he could not write and
claimed Smith had been paid. Smith got
Judgment for the full amount of his
claim.
The trial of the suit OF Harry Man
dell, Harry Fisher and Henry Helford
against Jacob. Max and Charley Ro-
senfield disclosed that Max Rosenneld
was a mighty sharp youth. The suit
was 30 recover i'm an action of trover
and conversion $47.50 for 20 barrels of
potatoes taken by the defendants frorc
the plaintiff.
STORY OF A POTATO TRADE.
The three plaintiffs on the 2Sth day
OF last July went into William :.
Sweets produce store and purchased Il
lot OF potatoes The price given them
by Mr. Sweets clerk, "A MIR. Spencer, was
first a $1.25 a barrl. Mandell and his
companions stuck TO first offer of
dollar a barrel and got IS barrels at
that price. Mr.. Spencer told them he
had % more barrels at the boat that
they could have i'm the afternoon. One
of the three plaintiffs who held the
party's Surse wanted TO pay for the 70
barrels at were at the boat then ana
three plaintiffs should see the potatoes
before the money was taken and told
them the balance of the lot would be at
the store by O'Clock in the afternoon.
The conversation taking place abou1
10: 30 o'clock i'm the forenoon.
Mandell and his copartners told about
their sharpness in buying. said they
sold the potatoes they bought for dol
lar "a barrel at % cents a peck or - 30
a barrel. and said that while the mar
ket value of most potatoes on the 18th
of last July was 81 80 or 81 %, the 81
barrel ones were just as good for their
trade. The three young men said the
Young man who Al the potatoes sent
to his home was the defendant Max.
that ne stood near where they were
when the bargain with Mr.. Spencer
was bern gmade
WANTED A PROFIT.
After his trip down town Mendell de-
manded his 20 barrels OF potatoes from
the defendant Jacob, who looked as AZ
he had them in charge, but Jacob
wanted a profit. Asked how much pro-
fit ne wanted said 20 cents or 10 cents
!. barrel Whereupon Mendall exclaim-
ed. he asserts in amazement. What
nav YOU a profit on my own potatoes" ?"
Jacob finally sold the potatoes to ped
dlers.
Mr.. Spencer. the clerk who sold the
potatoes. corroborated the plaintins,
only he said young Max stood with the
other three young men and talked
about the bargain. Witness said he
refused 20 take the money for the %
barrels as some times peddlers when
they bought produce without seeing IT
first caused lots of trouble.
Arthur Gushing, counsel for the de-
PENDANTS. asked for "A non-suit on the
grounds that the alleged sale was never
perfected. that there never was any
legal right to possession OF the potatoes
In the plaintiffs and because one of the
plaintiffs was a minor
Judge Reuckert did not believe any