The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-01-08
GRANITE CO.'S
LITIGATION.
Smith and NewaI| Case Again
Before Appellate Court.
ARGUMENTS ON MOTIONS HEARD
The Smith interests Asked That The Powers
Of tho Receiver Be Extended.
OTHER SIDE DESIRED HIS DISCHARGE.
Claim Mads That Heususs Of His Limited foxss
Receiver Had Been Compelled to Decline Con-
tracts 10 The Value Of $4,000.
The Smith interests Asked That The Powers
Of tho Receiver Be Extended.
OTHER SIDE DESIRED HIS DISCHARGE.

The controversy between the Smith
and Newall interests in the granite
quarries at Westerly formerly managed
by both parties, was heard again by
Chief Justice Matteson and Justices
Stiness and Tillinghast this morning.
Three motions We're before the court.
Two of them were made by the counsel
for the Smiths and asked that the pow
ers of the receiver. Lorin NJ. Cook, be
extended. The motion of counsel for the
Newalls was 10 do away with the re-
ceiver altogether on the ground that
the amending of their bill of complaint
by the Smith interests opened the whole
question of whether there should be
receiver or not.
Walter b. Vincent said that Receiv-
er Cook had to refuse a large number OF
profitable contracts. as his restrictions
prevented him from blasting or chan
nelling for new stone.
William S. Martin, a witness called
by Mr.. Vincent, testified he knew the
receiver had been forced TO refuse con-
tracts TO the extent OF 10000. The
profits on these contracts would be
from $4,000 TO $4,000. In order 10 do the
-ehaRAelling or blasting necessary TO
get new stone no new machine or tools
would be necessary.
on cross-examination the witness re-
fused 10 admit that certain losses Of
the Smiths in 1896. 1897 or 1898 were due
TO his mistakes in making estimates.
He admitted he was not a practical
quarry man. but had been i'm the office
of the Smiths for a long time.
James Gourley testified he had been
25 years i'm charge of granite quarry.
n -.
try was that the Smith Granite Quarry
company was not i'm the market for
work. The declining OF orders. as stat
ed by Mr.. Martin. was very injurious
to the Smith company's business.
Augustus s. Miller counsel for the
Newalls. read "A number or affidavits
from men who had worked in quarries.
which were TO the effect that the re-
ceiver's work was not OF advantage
20 the plant. Joseph Newall in an af-
fdavit stated that he was Informed by
parties who are In touch with the trade
that the receiver had sold a large guam
tity OF tools and ropes Furthermore
he was informed by Receiver Cook that
when case got into equity 1t would
remain there a couple Of years. This
LED Mr. Miller to remark that if there
had not been receiver the case would
have been settled long ago.
Mr.. Vincent retoTted: Yes, the lamb
would have been inside OF the lion"
The affidavits all stated the filling OF
the orders referred 10 by the receiver
could not be done without great and
dsproportionate expense.
Mr.. Miller argued that the amended
bill did not authorize the appointment
Of a receiver pendente lite. but asked
that if the court should deem IL best TO
continue the receiver his instructions
be made specific.
Mr.. Vincent recalled Mr. Gourley to
the witness stand, and that gentleman
said ne did not believe there would be
any large expense i'm filing the orders
the receiver had declined.
After Mr.. Gourley had made his
statement Mr.. Vincent argued that il
was plain common sense for the re-
ceiver to have the power necessary TO
work the quarry in a profitable man
ney. Both sides had a number OF
friends attending the hearing. The
court held the case for advisement.