Norwich bulletin., 1914-09-24

The case of Gordon A. Johnstone, of Atlanta, Ga, vs. the Danielsonville Cotton company came to a sudden termination in the superior court Wednesday morning when Judge Tut tie granted defendants motion for a non-suit after the plaintiff had rest ed.
 Johnstone was for a number of years the agent of the company at Danielson and claimed that the com pany owed him $11.00O as 5 per cent. commission for selling the company's plant. Evidence was introduced by the plaintiff to show that he had been authorized by J. Eugene CocoMn of the Cocoran Manufacturing company, Dedham, Mass, to sell the plant and that Cocoran was at one time treas urer of the Danielsonville company. It developed that the Cocoran family owned the stock of the Danielsonville Cotton company and also of the Dan ielson Cotton company and the Pom fret Power company, all Of which corporations were closely allied and owned by the family, although run as distinct legal entities. That in the course of events the defendant com pany borrowed some quarter of a mil lion dollars of Marshall Field of Chi cago and after MT. Fields death thsy were pressed to lquidate this debt. Not having the funds the stock of
 
 Field heirs and MT. Cocoran resigned as treasurer of the Danielsonville Cot ton company and it was after this resignation that he entered into nego- tiations with Johnstone to sell the property, Cocoran'S interest being that if the sale brought returns large enough to pay the Field heirs with a balance over that balance would revert to the Cocoran family.
 In arguing for the non-suit the de- fendant's counsel claimed that wheth- CT or not the plaintiff was entitled to a commission for the selling of the plant at least the defendant was not liable for those commissions as at the time J. Eugene Cocoran entered into negotiations with the plaintiff to sell the property, if he ever did. he, Co., coran. was not an officer of the com pany and had absolutely no right or power to bind the defendant company in any way.
 Plaintiff in reply argued that the company was liable on two grounds, that they at least nelu Cocoran out as their agent and that they ratified the contract by accepting the bene- fits from the sale. That there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury.
 In granting the motion Judge Tut tie said that he had anticipated such had gone over the evidence to see if there was any testimony that would tend to bring the defendant company within the scope of legal liability and had failed to find any. He said that he considered that the plaintiff had acted i'll good faith in making the sale and that he deserved to recover from someone: but that was beyond his jurisdiction as the only question for him was whether the company was liable and he found it was not and therefore granted the motion.
 PIainfield Auto Case on Trial. As soon as the above case was dis posed of the case of Alfred Arse neault vs. Walter Kingsbury. an ac- tion claiming 5000 for injuries re- ceived by being run into by an auto mobile at the town of Plainfield, Sep- tember ,, 1913, was begun to a jury | The parties belong in Plainfield and the plaintiff being a minor Il years old is suing through his father as next friend.
 Plaintiff alleges that he was struck | by an automobile owned by the de- | fendant and driven by his servant | Elmer Gasgen. That Gasgeu drove