Norwich bulletin., 1922-06-27
PUTNAM

Judge Marvin of the superior court mas rendered his decision in the case of Os- car Rich against his father. Jesse E. Rich. and orders that an accounting of the partnership be made. The case at tracted much interest when it was tried last April as the family is prominent and has lived many years in Putnam. The son was working in hls uncle's silk mill and according to his story his father approached him and asked him to go into business with him. This he did, loaning his father g small amount of money. The balance of the money was raised on a loan, Mrs. Rich, the boys mother, putting up collateral for the ioan. For some time the son drew no stated sum but took such cash as he needed for his personal wants. The son ! was contemplating getting married and asked his father to fix sum for him to draw weekly. This. was done. The bus mess was conducted under the name of I J. E. Rich & Son, which trade name ap- peared on the sign over the store and on l the stationary.
 A few months before the action was | started there was some trouble between father and son which resulted in the sons being denied admittance to the 1 T Danahey of Willimantic and the father retained Samuel B. Harvey of the same city. The case went to trial last April and the decision has been awaited with a great deal of interest by the people ot Putnam.
 ] Judge Marvin's memorandum of deeis ] ion filed with the clerk of court, Mon day is as follows:
 This is a case of son against father in which the marriage of the son seem: to have played some part. Before hi. marriage the son went to work with hi' father in a business which was pur chased from A. NJ. Douty, Decenlbel 1914. The boy put some of his ow1 l money into the purchase and the fathe
 borrowed on collateral furnished by thi
 mother for the major part of the pur
 chase price. The sons advancement t
 the project has been returned to hin
 and the mothers collateral has been re
 leased as security for the original in
 debtedness.
 "The evidence as to what the ar
 rangement between the father and sol
 was is entirely parole, the former sayin that it was a purely tentative affai
 which was to become a real partnershi
 after certain years of prooation and tn latter saying it was an equal part1ershf
 from the start.
 .'The conduct of the parties certainl lends color to the claim upon the par
 of the son. Letterheads were immedi ately prepared carrying the name, J. ) Rich & Son, and in this name all good were purchased and sold. Each dre7 . from the profits of the concern what wa needed to meet the expense for whic l he was individually liable. There neve } was a time when a certain percentag
 of such profits was carried to the cred i of either individual so that such proc , as any such accounting might afford entirely lacking.
 "On the plaintiff of course, rests th burden of proving the allegations of hi complaint by preponderance of tt evidence. There is no question bat whs . the partnership, if it was entered int was to be equal as to sharing losses ( r gains. but that the weekly stipend ( : each partner was subject to variation :. mutual agreement at any time. The so ] question is whether or not there wa
 ever time when the parties intende ] that the partnership should there orig I nate.
 ''The facts brought out by the evidenc
 seem to the court to disclose by a ia 5 preponderance the making of such A partnership agreement between the f; ther and son on December 23rd, 191 termnable at will, to which both yiel 3 ed their assent at the time and lived | l to till November 1921. when it was dt
 solved. This being 80 the son is entirie A to the relief sought in his complaint ar an interlocutory judgment may be a. cordingly entered for such accounting. In the case of William Hartma against Oliver F. Downs of Brookly the court finds for the plaintiff to recoyt
 $40o damages. This case grew out
 the defendant shooting the plaintiff the leg as he, the plaintiff, was approacl ing the defendants house in the nigl time. The defendant had been rough used by a man some months before u
 shooting and claimed to be in a high
 nervous state. When he saw the plai
 tiff on his premises he believed him be the same man who had made an q \ sault upon him and when the plaint
 did not halt at his command he fired tv
 shots from 9 shot gun. El A third decision was that in the ca
 of Louis Wolfe of Putnam vs. the La Hi Construction Co.,, of Meriden, in whit
 the plaintiff sought to recover baI1l
 due for trucking for the defendant whi
 the defendant was engaged in laying
 piece of state road near the village Ht Dayvifle. The defendant set up that f
 work was delayed on account of t
 plaintiffs negligence in doing the wor The decision Is for the plaintiff to I