Norwich bulletin., 1920-09-30

1u6rs 1rfhur F. Sumner presided at s session cs the superior court for Wash ington county in Westerly fer the first time when court came in Wednesday morning. on adjournment from Kingston. The Westerly trial calendar was read and the several cases called and disposed Of as follo~s:
 Palzasdus ". Bennett tvs Joseph T. Murphy. read for trial
 Norris Medley vs Joseph Gerard. Enoch D. Jerome~vs Arcadia Print Works. Westerly Light and Power company vs Arcadia Print works. ordered to foot of docret
 George Pickering. Jr.. vs John Gilchrist. aEsed. Thomas F. Eidredge vs Harold Doney, passed
 Maculato 1aconette, Angelo M Guarinc, .srrelo M Guarino vs Maculato Iaaon- nett vs Angelo M. Guarino. Bertha H. srrith vs State Board of Public Roads, Perrin Bros vs Franklin D. Lawson, con- lnued to the November session for trial in Westerly
 The two cases of Baptiste Bottinelli against the Westerly Automatic Tele- phone company. 10 be tried together was reported as ready for trial
 Charles T. IIoidredge vs Frank W.
 
 defendant file a bill of particulars within two weeks. The parties in this suit haus lad open accounts for more than twenty years, and defendant claims he is not indebted to plaintiff. The court will give hearing on the reference Co an auditor.
 The slander suit of Etta ostman vs Molly Silverstein is to be heard in chambers on an amendment to a demur- Ter previously entered.
 The case called for trial by jury was that of Palmedus W. Bennett against Joseph r Murphy. with Attorney Roche Tor plaintiff and Attorney Ledwidge for defendant The following composes the iury for the case:
 Benjamin Carpenter. chairman John Boothrlsn. Louis F. Collinh Thomas Hrichings of Westerly; George W. vii. son. Harry C. Vaughn, North Kingstown William Nr Thomas. South Kmgstown Lawrence Donaelly. Narragansett c Herbert Gardiner. Exeter; John H. Oat. isy, Richmond Walter Clinton and liar. ry W. Hoxie of Hopkinton.
 This is an action to recover S1o0 ot an account which involved the expendi lure Of sl675 in the purchase of a cot laee in High street. known as the Brew or placc. now owned and occupied b1 Daniel Seeketsr On May 27. 1914, tn, plaintiff agreed 10 purchase the plac, From the defendant, who was a dealer il real estate and paid him s10O 10 binC Tho agreement the baance to be paic 'tne l. The defendant called at hom, pf the plaintiff on that date to eollec. h, talance due and close the sale
 The plaintiff regretted making. tn agreement and declared he did not wisl fo make the purchase. The defendan stated that he happened to have anotl,. fa saIu would release the plaintiff from com plcting the purchase. As to the s100 de posiL the plaintiff alleges that the de tendant told him that he would be at III snancial loss. The plaintiff alleges tha ac asked the defendant several time Tor the Sl00, within a month after tn transaction. but he received no satisfac Ion As As claim would be outlawed i six years, he brought suit before tn spirsuonx of that limit
 ft was claimed by the defendant tha The action Co the deposit of sto0, as al opt.on. was within the law and is tn common practice in the real estate bus incss. He supposed the plaintiff wa ransedh In the dealing, after considers acm as no claim was made for nearly si years, or until the present suit wa -rouFht
 One of the witnesses for defendaI vas Mrs. Genevieve Holmes of Norwic who vas tenant of Mir. Murphy in tl Grower cottage. She testified that in tl bring of 1914, MT. and Mrs. Bennett cal ,I at the house and made inspection sta ng that they were considering the pu ,nase of tho place. A few days lat Mr Bennett called. said he had ma, Inc purchase, was to occupy the hou md advlsed witness and her husband -acate as soon as possible. Mir. Holm fecrir-f rr-uicy-r,ent fr Norwich and il 'amily has lived theIe since June 1s1i