The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-06-12
is THE NOTE
A FORGERY (?
Gulckln Sues NeWbo|d TO Re-
cover the Sum Of $1378.
DEFENDANT DENIES LIABILITY.
Declares He Never Signed Note on Which
Plaintiff Wants 10 Recover.
KERR DECLARES NOTE GENUINE.
KERR DECLARES NOTE GENUINE.
SaJs u Was Signed In His Store and That He
Transferred Il 10 Guckln, Who Is Ills
Cousin No Demand Made.

The only case tried I'm the common
pleas division OF the supreme court to-
day was that OF Thomas Guickin
against Robert Newbold to recover ST.
SIs alleged TO be due on a promissory
note made at Bristol on September 26,
1896. The note was originally given to
Michael Kerr, who transferred IL to
Guickin and the defendant claims the
note was a forgery. Both Kerr and
Newbold were formerly in the liquor
business and Differences arose. Mr.
Kerr claims that for a long time he
paid the bills of the firm, while New
bold got the benefit of the sale OF the
goods SD paid for. Mr.. Newbold says
that any bills Kerr paid he paid out OF
the partnership funds.
Michael Kerr testified he was a resi-
dent OF Bristol and knew Robert New
bold The note in question was shown
TO witness and he testified he saw New
bold sign it, Witness said he trans
ferred the note to Thomas Guickin.
On cross-examination Mr.. Kerr testi-
fed the note was signed by Newbold
In witness store. Ii was given be-
cause Kerr owed witness the amount
for which the note was given. There
was no one else present when the note
was signed except Newbold and wit
ness. Asked i'm what way Newbod
owed him the money for which the note
was given witness said he had paid
several bills in connection with a CO.
partnership business for the carrying
on OF saloon. Mr.. Kerr claimed New
bold bought goods for which Kerr paid
Pressed to explain this Kerr said he
paid for the goods out OF the proceeds
OF the saloon of which be was treasur-
er. The saloon was run by Newbold
and Kerr, witness putting i'm $3.50.
John w. Hogan, counsel for plaintiff,
objected TO the line of questioning taxi
en- by Henry w. Hayes, counsel for the
defendant Mr.. Hogan contended that
the only questions witness could be
asked was in regard to the signing OF
the note by Mr.. Newbold. The only
question was whether the note was a
forgery or not Mr.. Hayes claimed he
could go into all the particulars about
the note and the liquor saloon business
Judge Wilbur thought that as tho
general issue had also been pleaded by
defendant Mr.. Hayes should be per-
mitted to go on i'm the way he started.
Thomas Guickin, the plaintiff To
whom the note was sold, witness said,
was his full cousin. Witness trans
ferred the note because he wanted the
money, but he did not remember when
the note was sold. 1t might have been
III hplii, 1000. NJ utlfldnu 0dQ Deen
made for il.
In redirect Mr.. Kerr said that New
bold had all the partnership property
now. Witness. never had any part OF
the firm property.
Mr.. Newbold testified he gave Kerr
the $I00 note for which the saloon was
purchased. The note i'm suit was pre-
sented TO witness for examination and
he denied ever signing IL or being in
Mr.. Kerr's shoe shop alone. There
could be no reason FOR the giving OF
the note and IL was not true, as Kerr
had stated, that witness gave the note
TO show kerr's one-half interest in the
saloon business, forslerly conducted by
witness and Kerr. Mr.. Newbold said
he had been always able TO respond i'm
a financial way to such q note IL II had
been made. The alleged note was paw
able on demand Mr.. Newboid has ask |
ed for an accounting from Mr.. Kerr
whom he claims ran the saloon for |
some time.
The jury at the previous trial dis
agreed.