Putnam patriot., 1914-10-16
SUPERIOR COURT
Brokers Sue Putnam Manufacturing Co
Action 0utgrowth of Cotton Deal

 in Putnam Friday morning. No cases were assigned but the case of Rhodes Woodward k Co.,, vs the Putnam Mtg. Co., previously assigned for next Tuesday was claimed for trial. Alice Darman of Willmantic was granted SIP per week afmony pendente lie She testified that her husband runs a moving picture theatre in Willimantie that nets him between Sl00 and Sl50 per week and that he had paid her Sl5 week up to September 10th. She has instituted divorce proceedings. LeEtta F.. HoNie was granted divorce from her husband, Herbert F. Hoxie on the ground of intolerable cruelty. The parties live in Willimantie
 The case of Rhodes, Woodward x Co.,, cotton brokers of New Bedford, vs the Putnam Manufacturing company, with mills in this :eity, was begun ae- fore Judge Joseph F. Futile in the Su- perior court in Putnam Tuesday morn- ing. Plaintiffs allege that they had a contract with the defendant whereby the defendant purchased of them 300 bales of cotton at Is T.S cents per ponnd, the total sale amounting to over $50, ,O0o. That the plaintiff ten dered delivery of the cotton, but that it was refused by defendant, although defendant subsequently, received 20 bales for which 1t paid. Damages of S7 900 are claimed. Defendants an. swer is in substance a general denial, but 1t says that If there was contract 1t was agreed that the cotton should be sampled and stored by them and taken and paid for on order of the plaintiff as wanted and that plaintiff sent the cotton with sight draft attached for the full amount, that defendant re- fused 1t and plaintiff removed it.
 The lchief witness for the plaintiff was Donald N. Ross of Calgary, All berta, Canada, who came on to be a witness In the case although he stated that he was going to remain in Provi- dence until spring. The iplaintiff's x |
 witnesses testified in substance that In 1911, William F. Vaughan, agent of the defendant, agreed to buy 300 bales of cotton at IS 7,S cents n pound. That il was agreed that the splaintifi should carry the cotton for from a week to ten days. That subsequently, MT. Vaughan told the plaintiff that he would not be able to pay for the cotton within the time specified. That the plaintiff attempted to get n bank in Providence to carry the cotton, but the banks would not accept the warehouse receipt of the Putnam Manufacturing company as collateral. That after the cotton had been refused by defendant at Putnam plaintiff had l50 bales sent to Q storage warehouse in Norwich and the other l50 bales to a warehouse in New Bedford. Subsequently defend- ant took two lots of 10 bales each and paid for them. A third lot of 10 bales was returned as not up to type.
 Plaintiff finally sold l30 bales at IS cents and l50 bales at IS l-2 cents, but 1t was nearly a year and a half later when 1t was sold. Reports were in troiuced to show the condition of the cotton market and testimony was of- fered, with the understanding that it might later be ruled out. that the mar ket declined considerably immediately after the sale and did not reach any where near the point it was when the sale was made until the time the cot ton was finally sold to other parties Much of the testimony had to do with the customs and usages of the trade Bnd many nice legal questions arose. sam pies of cotton from all of the bales were marked for Identification and the alleged type from which the sale was made was put in evidence. The plain tifis case was not all in when court adjourned for the day.
 On Wednesday morning plaintiff put on several witnesses who qualified as cotton experts and they told in de- tail the methods of the brokerage end
 
 of the business and the condition Of the market at the time and subsequent to the time of the alleged sale. The daily cotton reports for period of two years were laid in as exhibits. Plain tifi rested at i2.l5.
 Attorney 5earls for the defendant made motion for a non-suit on the ground that the sale was within the statute of frauds and that the plaintiff had shown no writing signed by the party nor by his agent. The court stated that in it's opinion prima taeie case had been made out and that the acceptance of the twenty bales was sufficient to take the case out of the statute and the motion WAS denied.l
 William r. Vaughan, agent of the com mpany, WIS on the stand ali day af- ter being called by the defence. He testified that he lived in Providence, is 1 72 years old, has been in the cotton business 50 years and has been con nected with The defendant company since 1865. He testified that the con tract he made was for 800 bales of cot ton on terms such as be had been buy ing from J r. Rhodes & Co, another
 brokerage concern, which were thai the cotton should be put in his ware
 house and right to examine allowed
 the bales to be paid for as taken ou and before used. He said that wher