The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-07-24
IN THE DISTRICT COURT.
Several Interesting Civil Cases Dis
posed Of This Morning.
Mr.. SpaIghfs Action Developed Some Ua'
usual Features Other Cases.


against Michael Spaight in the siN'h
district court this morning were some
what out OF the ordinary for the ehlel
witness for the plaintiff was very pro-
fuse in his compliments on the seheryi
character OF the defendant. MI
spaight bought lumber reach OF Joilh
slavin. The latter owed Perkins BIOS
a bin and Mr.. Spaight gave SlaNm an
order TO present 10 Perkins Bros lor
$50. This order was presented TO the
plaintiffs bu; never paid because MI
spaight claims he gave Mr.. SlaFin
note in payment for the lumber reach
also
Eugene +. Bowen. assignee NJ the
Mechanics Installment company, h1u
a number OF cases against patrons oL
the now insolVent concern ana oMlnS
Ia circumstances beyond his control nc
Inst about an of them. There has pc"
some criticism OF this company nlan-
aeement and its method of dong DUST
ness that seems borne out by toudy
nrocr eding. 4. j. Cushing was couhseI
IN five of the eases and won all put one one
of Them one OF Mr.. Gushing cheh1s
was =. T. Turner. cOlored. who had IN
vested in a watch, ring and charm. ne
maid as long as an agent came aTouini
Air. Cushing called attention TO me
lease. which said the money was 10 pv
collected weekly. Decision for the ue-
fendant for costs. In another case MI
Gushing said no demand Tor the prop.
erty had been made before bringing sur
and In still another the same attorhey
had the bin FOR the goods, which hai
bgen maid. Herman Wagner was sueu
for two diamond rings. Thomas West
his attorney. proved by officers OF the
company that the rings had beeh re-
turned In an these cases the asslsHSe
will have to pay costs.
Dennis j Holland early in H. hear
ing raised the point that the accept
ance of the order not being IN Wil'ins
under the statute of Tduds IL ueins
the promise 20 pay the debt of ahouher
il was invalid. John w. Hogan Gun
sci for the plaintiff, held the order was
p-iven i'm payment OF the defendants
own debt.
Burmah T.. Perkins testified that MT.
Slavin presented him with an oFder
signed by Spaight. Witness wrote W
Spaight. who called IN answer TO the
letter and said the order was all right
and when he got his money from the
cIty the following Monday he wouiu
come i'm and pay II. Spalght never
came back Forest Perkins. bookkeep-
er FOR the plaintiff. said Spaight ad-
mitted the order was all right and
promised TO pay It. on cross-examina-
tion this witness as well as thu pre-
Vious one said they did not remember
Mr. Spaight saying anything about
note. Mr.. Slavin owed the plaintiff
about 500 whsn the note was given.
The defendant testified he bought a
lumber reach from Slavin and that on
January II OF the present year he sent
his son after the reach and gave him
a 60-day note 10 favor, of Slayin and
told his son to put II in the hands of
Slavin. This was the reason Mr. Spaight
said he had refused 10 pay the order.
He believed his son had given the note
to Slavin. Mr.. Hogan had quite an in
teresting time cross examining Spaight
The latter had referred to an entry he
had i'm his book 10 substantiate the
claim that he sent a note to Slavin.
Mr.. Hogan examined the book and
found the entry made as of January IA
was well beyond the middle of the book
while entries of events in Mr.. Spaight's
business were much nearer the front
cover. some OF the entries being made
i'm May that were before the January
date in the order of the book. This
naturally gave Mr.. Hogan a chance to
ask some questions, and he asked some
tnat ar. Spaight answered not in a
very satisfactory manner. Mr.. Hogan
noticed Mr.. Hollands name in the
book and he made remark, whereup-
on Mr.. Holland asked if there was a
statement NJ a payment TO him. Mr..
Hogan said yes and he was sorry to
say the sum paid was not large enough.
Mr.. Spaight said when he went to the
nf of nj a . h. Iar
he told Mr.. Burmah f.. Perkins that
he owed Slavin the money i'm one way
and i'm another he did not. and that
whaet he promised was that if "A note
he had g<en his son to deliver had not
been delivered he would pay the order.
In answer To a question by Mr.. Hogan
Spaight said his son was not i'm court
because he had 10 tend to some work
at Auburn
Mr.. Slavin swore he never got a
note from Spaight. That the latter
said when he bought the reach that he
would have no money until the 2Sth OF
March, and he, witness. told --;pasght
that would be all right. Mr.. Slayin
said all the claims he had against
Spaight was the order Plaintiffs had
sued on. While waiting for the case
| TO be called this morning Slavin swore
he asked Spaight why he did not settle
the case WITHOUT coming To court and
! Spaight said his son took the note and
! may be the son left the note on A win.
| dow sill and it did not reach Slavin.
Judge Reuchert said the only question
was the one raised by Mr. Holland and
| that gentlemen is To present authori.
| ties and a decision will be announced 2
| week from to-day.
other cases disposed OF in the sam,
court to-day were:
| Raffaele l. Nandro VS. Domenic,
| Perucarclli. Decision for the plaintiff
| for So % and costs
ID. l.. II. Granger, city treasurer. vs
| Nathan Il. Harris executor. Discon
| tinued. No costs.
II. l.. II. Granger. city treasurer. Y.
| William r.. Thomas. Discontinued \.
costs by agreement Of parties i'm opeI
| court.
John w Mitchell vs. David +. Lin
game. Decision for the plaintiff for 81
i and costs
Howard \. Wstcrhouse VS.. Thomas ]
! Elliott Decision for the plaintiff 10
S93 IS and costs
O.. =. Anderson vs. Waltham Screv
CompanyDecision FOR the plaintiff 10
| S93 -.
Eugene +. Bowen. assignee. VS.. Mar
Hanley. Decision for the defendan. 10
| costs.
Eugcnt f. Bowcn assignee. VS.. Ere