Norwich bulletin., 1914-05-22
BREACH OF CONTRACT
 SUIT NEARING END.
vs. Thames River Speciaities
 Company in Superior Court.

The evidence in the suit of Waiter O. Whitaker vs. the Thames River Specialties company for $1S.00o dam ages for alleged breach of contract seemed nearly all in when the supe- rior court adjourned here Thursday afternoon at 4.38 o'clock.
 Attorney J. J. Desmond, for the plaintiff, said he had one more witness then to introduce in rebuttal.
 In the afternoon session of court on Thursday Theodore Foster of Spring field, by whom Mir. Whitaker was ern- ployed as superintendent in a paper mill before going to the Thames River Speciaities company, testified that his mill had trouble with its product the whole of the first year of operation and it was common experience with pa- per mills, according to his knowledge, and that Mr. Whitaker was a compe- tent and satisfactory superintendent, and Mr. Foster would have kept kim in his employ if he had not gone to the Thames River Specialties compa- ny.
 On cross examination Major Hull brought out that Mir. Foster had had no experience with board of the grade made at the Thames River Specialties company.
 Mir. Whitaker, the plaintiff, was re- called to the stand by his counsel. He testified that the mill was running steadily from October to Dec. 29. 1910, except for occasional shutdowns through some machinery trouble He said he knew of no trouble between himself and the force at the mill and he did not know of any dissatisfaction with him or the part of Mir. Van Rens- salaer. Mir. Van Renssalaer never gave any intimation of that. Tbe witness said he had always given prompt att tention to remedying troubles that oc- cured, that he spent all the time az his work that was required, and was at the mill nearly every evening and sometimes until quite late in the night.
 Frank w. Browning. formerly man. ager of the Uncas paper mill at ThamesviIle in Norwich testified that they had much trouble at the begin ming of manufacture at the mill. He said he thought it was impossible for the superintendent of a mill to pre- vent defective goods altogether. He said that he had conversations with Horatio Bigelow, Jr., and MT. Van Renssalaer before the Thames River mill was built, that they asked him to recommend man as superintend- ent and he recommended MT. Whit aker. Mir. Whitaker was assistant su- perintendent and superintendent at the Uncas paper mill and his services were satisfactory and he was competent, MT. Browning said.
 Lewis s Scranton, formerly sales manager for the Thames River Spe- cialties company, testified that he was able to hold his regular trade while with the Thames River company, and the orders that he turned in while MT. Whitaker was superintendent were filled as far as he knew.
 By questions to the witness Major Hull inquired whether he would have been able to save his trade if the board had continued of the same quail ity as was turned out up to Nov. 29. 1910. To this the witness answer. No Then Major Hull asked if it were not Mir. Whitaker's discharge that saved his trade, but Attorney Desmond in- terposed objection and the court ruled the question out Mir Scranton tes- tified that. he thought MT. Whitaker had not had long enough time to get the mill in proper adjustment.