Putnam patriot., 1922-04-07

 was S3l.000. He testified that all loans secured on notes signed by his father were paid from the profits of the store.
 Never Shared In Profits
 The witness further testified that aside from the weekly allowance he received, he was never given any casn from the profits of the store-except the Sl,200 paid for his automobile. During his active connection with the store, he stated. the father withdrew in addition to other moneys. Si.000 of the firms cash with which to pur- chase some oil stock, which though considered a good value then, has since depreciated from S2 a share to less than 30 cents.
 The next witness was Mrs Helen Brinsmade, mother-in-law of the plaintiff, Oscar Rich. She testified that at a dinner at the Inn Yan Yam kee, near Providence, attended by the Riches and Mir. and Mrs E.>C. Rogers and herself. Jesse Rich told her that Oscar was a partner in the store. Then, on the occasion of her inspee= tion of the store, she said Mr. Rich told her that half of this is his, ' meaning the son Oscar She said her home was in Meriden, but since the marriage of her daughter. she had made her home winters with Mir ana Mrs. Oscar Rich. She denied that she ever used outrageous language and called Mrs. Jesse Rich vile names.
 Mrs. Oscar Rich Testifes
 Mrs. Oscar Rich followed her moth- CT on the witness stand She declared that the senior Mr. Rich gave her to believe always that his son was an equal partner in the business and she heard AIr. Rich say, she testified. that Oscar was a partner in the store. Il was several weeks before Oscar left the store. she said, when she and NJ. Rich had an "altereation' during which her son was discussed. that she was told by the senior Mir. Rich that Oscar was not q partner in the busi- ness, but simply a clerk.
 F. C. Rogers. Putnam Inn proprie= tor. who was at one time engaged in the automobile business with Jesse Rich, testified that he had heard Mr. Rich ,allude to his son on several oe- easios> as his partner in the store business.
 Defendant Takes Stand
 With Mr. Rogers testimony. the plaintiff rested his case. Then Jesse F. Rich, defendant, was called. He testified that he bought the business he was engaged in himself, and that ne took his son in with him as a clerk, l with the intention of making him a partner when he considered the time l was ripe. He affirmed that the $500 turned over to the concern by his son, i was loan. given at the request of the father, who paid 1t back a number of I weeks later. Mr. Rich stated that the S1.2O0 spent on the automobile ir r question, was gift to the son, he hav- ing bought two ears, and told his son to 20 and take his choice of the ma chimes, which he did.
 The witness testified that he asked his son if he would like to live in the Grove street neighborhood, and after ward bought the two-tenement house he now owns, taking part from the store and the balance he raised on his personal note.
 Called Down" By Daughter-in-Law
 He stated that last October he took his grandchild for an automobile ride and that when he returned he receiv ed "call down" from his daughter in-law.. One word led to another, he said. and during the conversation he told Mrs. Rich that Oscar was not a partner in the business but only a clerk. Later on, he stated, he told his son Oscar that if he brought suit he didn't want him around the store, and that if the ease came to trial, he would have to leave the store.
 Mr. Rich denied ever telling Mrs. Brinsmade that Oscar was a partner in the business or that the son was half.owner. He stated that it was his intention of eventually taking his son into full partnership, and to save trou- ble and expense when this event should take place. he said. he had signs. letterhsads. etc, made out to read J T.. Rich x Son