Norwich bulletin., 1920-11-23
WESTERLY

The superior court for Washington county, adjourned from Kingston, came in at Westerly Monday, Judge Sumner presiding. At the court opening 1t was announced that the case of the state against Charles Bailey, indicted for the murder of his brother, would be continued until Monday next. Attorney 4. T. l.. Ledwidge assigned by the state as coun- sel for Bailey, asked that-all other cases on the docket in which he was counsel be | placed at the foot of docket. This was done. The cases are: George Pickering, | Jr., vs. John Gilchrist; Etta Ostman vs. Molly Silverstein Everett Marshall vs. Richard A. Brady, and Hans De Gannett vs. Richard A. Brady.
 The other cases on the docket were dis | posed of as follows Charles Saunders vs. Malcolm Thompson discontinued An tonic Catalina, ready for trial; Myron Plympton vs J. De We're Barber, ready on Wednesday; Oliver E. Vars vs. N. r., N. H. & H R. R. Co.,, passed, and will prob | ably be settled; Maculata Iaconnetta vs. Angelo n. Guarino, passed Angelo M. Guarino vs. Maculata Iaconnetta, passed; Mary B. Cappuicio vs Angelo M. Guarino, ready; Ferris Brothers vs. Franklin D. Lawson, ready Thurman F. Eldredge VIZ. Harold Doney. passed Morris McCloy vs. Joseph Gerand, ready, with settlement pending Enoch D. Jerne vs, Arcadia Print works, ready Baptiste Bottinelh vs. Westerly Automatic Telephone Co.,, two cases. ready; Elizabeth Hoxie vs. Almond Hoxie, ready; Joseph Gerand vs Morris McCloy. foot of docket; Jessie c. Ferguson vs. Samuel H. Davis, executor, appellee, passed Charles H. Holdredge vs. Frank W. Coy. ready; Joseph M. Dus- sault vs. Courtland B. Bliven, two cases, ready
 The first caso called for trial was that of Sheffield Thompson vs. Malcolm Thompson, book accounting. Attorney John J. Dunn appeared for plaintiff and Judge Herbert W. Rathbun for defendant. i The jury was empanelled as follows Ne' son F. Mellen Narragansett foreman William A. Perry, Frank H. Cornell, Clark H. Sheldon, South Kingston; .ance- lot R. Browning, Albert F. Gaunders, , George W. Westlake. Thomas Stringfel- low, Jr., North Kingston Edwin L. Saw yers Westerly; Edwin Fisher, Charles . town; Thomas Tefft, Exeter; 1.enry A. ! Dawley, Hopkinton.
 . Douglass had been in Ahe employ oi ! Thompson as farmer. laborer, lurnber1nan and teamSter for about seven years at a s wage of $20 a week. He claims Thomp- , son owes him $S2.92 for services. $5S foI l the board of dog at S1 a week. and also
 $500 for board a total of $435.92. He
 testified that Thompson discontinued boarding with him on Dec. 20, 1919. Wher l asked if there was any special reason a !, that time he replied: No, not any par ticular reason MT. Thompson got mar
 ried, that's all.'
 Douglass when cross-examined said h, ! could not read or write and that his wifi kept his accounts For two years prio l!i ! to eDc. 20, 1919, Douglass testified he re t sided on the Richard Wheeler farm II which was rented by Thompson. He stil
 received S2o week pay, and was fur
 nished free rent free wood. free milk ant
 eggs. and given a garden on which h.
 raised 50 bushels of potatoes and thre
 new agreement with MT, Thompson whel
 he moved to the Wheeler farm. Witness
 said he owed Thompson SIP when hp frs
 went to the Wheeler farm. and Thompson
 said he would let that go towards pay
 ment of board Thompson was elected t' | the Connecticut legislature and was ava.
 from two to four days a week, but n'
 deduction was made on that account, a | Thompson was usually home for d lat
 supper. He said the claim for labor in
 ciuded work done for Thompson by tw
 sons of witness, which amounted t
 S3S.50. He said he never sent Thonlpso1
 bill for the amount claimed to be du and had never asked him for settlement
 Mrs. Douglass. wife of plaintiff, ex
 plained the account as kept by her be l tween MT. Thompsin and her husband 1 small account book was introduced show
 ing several entries, part of which sh
 said was made up after her husband lief
 the employ of Mir Thompson. Statement
 of the account against MT. Thompson ant
 the credits allowed MT Thompson by he
 husband two separate sheets. had beel
 handed Mir. Thompson and these were il
 evidence. She testified that the sheet
 were made from the small account bool
 in court. and this book was made up il
 part from book that was at her home
 but the entries in both books were identi
 cal On cross examination # develope that the entries were not in order. tha the totals differed from the sheets, an indicated that the bookkeeping was not '