Putnam patriot., 1913-02-28
City Court..-fuIIer Judge


 Friday morning at II o'clock and plead not gully to charge of obtain ing money under false pretenses from Thomas Ryan of Thompson.
 The complaint was originally made to Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Bradford as it was then thought that the case would be tried in Thompson. It later developed that the transaction took place in Putnam. Attorney Brad ford worked up the case which entail ed quite an amount of technical evil dence including records, and state ments made in Boston andProvidence. The case was tried by the assistsnt prosecuting attorney assisted by the prosecuting attorney.
 Mir. Ryan testihed that he met Leo in Putnam on the 29th of May, 1912, at his office on Pomfret street. Leo wan ted 5000 in order that he might de- posit five checks of S200 each on con land. Ryan asked him what property he owned and Leo stated that he own ed two road rollers, stone crusher, 23 horses and wagons, and further said that they were free from encumbranc- es Ryan then endorsed the note of Leo for Sl ,000 and Leo had 1t immedi- ately discounted at the First National Bank, putting the proceeds to the ac- count ofihis sister, who had given him a power of attorney to draw on it. Leo then drew five checks in exchange for five cashiers checks drawn to the or der of the State of Rhode Island. Leo also obtained further inducements from Ryan, and Ryan was finally obliged to give a note for a total sum of S5,100.
 Cornelius Fitzgerald of Boston, rep resentative of the MassachusettsB Bond- ing company testified that he was in the company's office in Boston when list of property which Leo had claim ed to the company he owned was read to him. It included the property that he represented he owned to Ryan and when asked at that time If he had not made the same representation to MT. Ryan he admitted that he had. Warren Ryan of Worcester, son of Thomas Ryan, testified that he was present at the interview and heard Leo make the same admission. John B. Byrne, teller in the First National Bank, testified that the note was discounted by Leo and had been renewed from time to time until paid by Ryan with another note.
 D. s. Elliott, own-clerk in Thomp- son, identified certified copies of con ditional bills of sale recorded in Thompson. These records were put in to show that Leo never had clear ti- tie to certain of the property.
 Fred c. Wright of Boston, of the Good Roads Machinery scompany, tes- tified that Leo had bought road rol Ter and stone ,crusher from that con- cern on conditional bill of sale and had never paid on it and they had been taken back. Attorney Perkins said they admitted that, Leo only had the property on conditional bills of sale.
 Sheriff Holbrook testified to going to Providence where he saw number of horses and carts taken from Leo who had job in Rhode Island. The prop erty was later taken to Thompson by Ryan who was forced to give it up when Tony Vito produced bill of sale of 1t that he had previously .ob- tained from Leo.
 This closed the States case. 'The de- fendant offered no testimony. Leo was bound over in the sum of Sl000 and Vito went surety on the bond.
 Charles E. Geer was before the court Tuesday morning and paid fine of S5 for selling imitation butter in his res taurant without displaying sign that it was used by him which the law re- quires.
 December 23 last an agent of the dairy and food commissioner dropped into the restaurant and took a sample of butter which after it had been ana lyzed proved to be oleomargerine.C Com- plaint was made to the prosecuting att iorney Monday and the prosecution followed.
 Geer said that he went to a store for butter and as was frequently the case when the proprietor was busy he was told to wait on himself. He claimed that the butter and the oleomargerine were kept in boxes close together and in his haste he took the wrong article without noticing 1t. He said he did not intend to use the stuff in his busi- ness either in the past or in the future and said his trouble was merely the outcome of mistake on his part. The agent of the dairy and food commis- sioner recommended light penalty as he said that there had been no fragrant violation of the law.
 O H Nafac