Delaware Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1843-1874, 1866-05-21

!. Freeman Jr., vs, Samuel B. Sutton. This |
'as an action upon promissofy note drawn |
' Samuel B. Sutton, dated May Is, 1893, ct 8 |
lonths for 500, with interest from August
3, 1858.
VIM. s. Meoapllsy for plaintiff. Rodney for
sfsnss. .-....-
Thos. CHM, was sworn and testified to the
andwriting and signature Of Mr.. Sutton.
McCAulley then read number Of letters
rom Mr.. Sutton Ia reference to the nste. after
shich the evidence for the plaintiff closed.
Mr.. Rodney, for the defense, claimed that
10 confederation had ever been received for
he note, and called Mrs. sarah Taylor to tes-
ify to the handwriting and signatures of Mr..
freeman TO number Of letters from him to
Mr.. Sutton, after which they were road to the
ury and the evidence for the defense closed.
Mr.. MoCaulley addressed the jury stating
that the presumption Of law was that the
helder Of note was entitled TO the value
thereof. There was no evidence that the note
had not been paid Mr.. Sutton, and the pre-
sumtion was that Mr.. Freeman had paid 1t.
Mr.. Rodney claimed that II this note went
upon the market fer Mr.. Sutton's use, then
Mr.. Freeman never can recover upon II. There
was no evidence that the note had ever been
discounted and any consideration passed to
Mr.. Sutton. On the contrary Mr.. Sutton gave
the note to Mr.. Freeman to get it discounted,
which never was done, but It laid in Mr.. Free
mans desk until year after 1t was que. No
consideration having been given Mr. Sutton
for the he was right in refusing to pay 1t.
The Chief Justice charged the jury that the
holder Of q note was presumed TO be entitled
to 1t, and entitled to recover the value upon
1t.
10 the absence Of contrary proof II would be
the duty of the jury to return verdict for the
plaintiff for the amount Of the note. From the
letters the presumption, however, was, that
Mr.. Freeman did net give satisfaction for it
and II was incumbent upon him to show that
he either advanced the money upon 1t or got
some one else to discount it, II was for the
Jury to decide whether he had given such con.
sideration and II they were satisfied be had
given consideration for 1t the verdict should be
for the plaintiff.
The case was given to the jury, who retired
snd returned in about an hour with q verdict
for the defendant.
Tha graud Jury came down about o'clock;
and having no further business before them
were discharged until next term. The follow
is their report:
To THR HONORABLE, The JupsRs OF THE CouRr
or GnsEAL SESSIONS OF THE PHAos AND JAIL
DKLivERY:
The Grand Inquest of the State of Delaware
for the body Of New CASTLE County, beg leave
TO report that they have had presented to them
for their consideration three hundred aud
thirty 1--we indictments, of which they found
two hundred and fifty true bills, and ignored
eighty Eve. A very large proportion, to wit:
Two hundred and eleven of the true bills, and
seventy nine, of those ignored were violations
OF the license laws.
The Grand Jury have also passed upon thir
| ty two petitions for Recommendation tor license
| TO retail Intoxicating liquor, of which they
granted twenty, and refused twelve.
In the course ofeur official duties we visited
the County Jail, which we found In thehighes
state Of cleanliness and order. In this con
nection We would state that the Sheriff com
planned that many persons were committed h
prison, and laid there for months, awaiting
trial, who had not change of-nor 10 fact an,
proper clothing. Uader such circumstances
was impossible to keep the persons and cell
| OF such prisoners clean
As suggested by the Honorable court, the
| Grand Jury desire to call the attentio Of thu
Levy Court to the utter insuficency and I'M.
healthiulnees of the present Court House; tina
a new and cemmodious one should be provi-
ded, with as little delay as possible, admits Of
no doubt, but we recommend that SO great al
expense should not be incurred on the presen
site, In view of the increasing desire on tn
| part Of the community at large, to have tn
| seat of justice for the county more convenien
| to the centre of population and business.
But inasmuch "a the consideration OF tn
| question of removal, and the erection Of ne'
buildings in case the removal 10 determined o.
by the proper authorities, weuld Involve cor
siderable time, while In the interval, all person
having connection with the Courts, would sti
suffer In health and convenience; therefore
the Grand Jury earnestly urge on the Lev
Court the absolute necessity Of prompt mes
sures for the ventila ton of the present Coui
room. All of which is respectfully submitted
@Msy 10th, 1895. ELIHu JEFFERSON, Foreman
Thos. N. ogle. VS.. the Philadelphia, Viii
mington b Baltimore R. R. Co. This was
suit brought by Mr.. ogle to recover damage
for injuries sustained by his person and PROF
erty by coal cars, which he'd been left stsndin
across public street Ia New Castle. Whil
Mr. ogle was crossing the street bis horse too
fright at the cars, and threw the carriage col
tanning himself and son, down an embankmel
ipjuring him and breaking his carriage. tt
company had shut up the road leading to tn
Newport road, while they made improvement
to their road, and Mr.. Ogle was obliged
order to get TO New CASTLE, to cross the roa
on which the cars stood.
Booth for plaintiff. Harrington for defeuc
ant.
After empannelipg the jury the Court &C
journed until 3 O'Clock.
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON met at 3.
Howard Ogle. sworn-Live about two mile
from New CASTLE with my father; in Decembe
1868, when we were going out Of New Castle
about 10 O'Clock at night, there were q numbe
of care standing on a side track about on
fourth the distance across the carriage wa
on Washington Avenue; the grading up an
over the track was hardly wide enough fo
two carriages to pass; the horse becsm
frightened at the cars, and rushed down th
embankment, throwing US out and ipjurin
| my father; the top of the carriage gave wa,
and the horse broke loose and kept on; Ii
carriage was worth S7b; the horse from Sic
| TO $l2b; and the harness worth $2b; beto
. | the accident the horse was very gentle al
| quiet; since then we have been afraid to dr
him much for fear Of his running away.
8 Cross.examined-My father was not col
II fined TO his bed from his INJURIES; he we
d 10 DIR. Merritts after the accident to have
q | wounds dressed.
9 DIR. John Merritt, sworn-Mr. 0gle came
my house on the night OF the accident 10 ha
Of his wounds dressed; he had a wound on h
{, ear, and several ether bruises on his persc
l. ! dressed his wounds; his ear was slit in tw
r; be was covered with dust and dirt and seem
to be much frightened; the wound on his he
at that season of the year might have be
: followed by erysipelas, which might pro
c. very disastrous; | did not visit him becaus
10 was not practiciug and did not keep q CT
II rlage; saw the cars on the road few da
+ before and after the accident.
10 Samuel W. Strickland, sworp AT the til
Of the accident kept hotel at New Castle;
Ell had frequently seen the cars on the track VIII,
Il, the accident occurred; sold the horse to
g Oglei l considered her safe for any man
woman to drive | would have valued her
v 5000; drove her the spring after the &C
in dent, and she was harder to hold than befo
ia Mr.. ogle gave $3.50 for her; when had
al horse she was not afraid OF the cars.
q, Abran P. Shannon, sworn-Live in Chril