Delaware Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1843-1874, 1866-05-17

ave, her protector could receiver tor neceB-
lry supplies. But before finding verdict
gainst the defendant the jury must be salts :
cd that she had sufficient cause for leaving,
mt not otherwise. There was no evidence
hat she had such cause, and there was no :
round on which her father could recover for Il
granting her supplies. IL
This jury rsturned verdict for the defendant =
Without leaving the box. IL
Court adjourned till 10 O'Clock, Tuesday IL
n ,rning.
TUESDAY MoRsrna. Court met at 10 o'clock. l
, Anthony Reybold va John j. Henry This
was an action upon contract Of purchase and |
sale Of livery stable 10 Washington, in March,
1858. The contract was completed by the pay
meut in full of all the money to be paid by the
plaintiff. The defendant had failed to furnish
part Of the property for which he had been
paid by the plaintiff, and this action was
brought to recover the value of the property
not delivered which amounted to $4,000, with
3 years and months interest. The total sum |
paid for the livery stable was $24, 900.
Geo C. Gordon for.plaintiff. e. g. Bradford |
| for defence.
| Mr.. Gordon read the testimony of Lewis |
Jamison, taken before o commissioner out Of
the State. 1t stated that Jamison was present |
when the parties conc uded the bargain for the
sale of the stable in April 1858. Mr.. Henry
was to sell to Reybold all the horses, carriages
horses was to be either 40 or 43; the price a.
greed on was $24 900; Mr.. Reybold paid $1,000
down, and gave his notes for the balance at
short dates. In estimating the value OF the
stable, Mr. Heary valued the privilege OF sup
plying Wizards Hotel with carriages az
$4,000, and that he was supplying the hotel
under contract with the proprietor. The value
OF the stable alone at sac, 900.
Thomas Ulark, sworn-I was In Washington
|, I In Ham xua Than rtata nf
} livery stable; he told me Mr.. Reybold had spo-
E ken to him in reference to buying him out; he
Y | asked S25 900 for bis establishment; he had
r some 90 or 50 horses in the stable at the time;
= and said his best horses were out; asked him
what he asked apiece for his horses he said
. $3.50; summed up the value OF his stable as
t stated by him, but it only amounted to $4,000;
I told him it did not amount to the sum he
Q asked for the stable, when he said he valued
E the right ofsupplying Willard's hotel at $4,000;
: Mr.. Reybold paid him $1,000 in cash, and gave
D him four notes Tor the balance; on taking po-
z session Of the stable, the carriages were sent
!, TO the stands about Wizards hotel as usual;
It at noon they returned, not having been EN-.
y ployed by the hotel, bat were driven away by
l. the proprietor; went to the hotel and saw the
n proprietor; he told me he had made an agree
y meat with another man, and refused TO use the
Is horses aud carriages; he said he had nothing
|. to do with Mr.. Henry; that he had not furnish
ID ed carriages regularly, and he was glad b,
al had got rid OF him. When Reybold went tt
Ia see Mr. Henry about it Mr.. Henry said the thini
10 was settled now, and he didn't make child
OF bargains; Mr.. Henry sold to Mr.. Reybold
70 horses in all; four OF the horses were toiall
or unfit for the business; sold one OF the horse
es to sutler for $76; the suter came back IL
ia about month and said the horse had sol,
N him wa5 government horse and they had ia
10 ken possession of it; went to the government
lh stable and found it was as he had stated tn
in harness and carriage were very much worn.
IS Mr.. Gordon read the deposition OF Henry A
Z Chadwick, of Washington In April, 1858, b
MS was the proprietor OF Wizards Hotel. Their
ct was no contract with John ]. Henry for sup
re- plying carriages for the hotel; but he di
ay furnish some carriages up to March 1868, bu
er the guests complained of their treatment q
To- the stables, and an arrangement was mad
ny with another party for supplying the hotel;-
,e | this change was made before the sale wa
lie made by Mr.. Henry to MIR. Reybold.
There being no witnesses for the defence
10 Mr.. Gordon opened the argument. He state
ia that the plaintiff had been grossly swindle
by the misrepresentation of the DEFENDANT
er he had represented that he had a cnntract 70
supplying Wizards Hotel with horses an
IL. carriages, when the proprietor of the hote
Of swears there was no contract; without tha
he contract Mr., Reybold never would have bough
1t the stable, and it had only been sold throug
to deceitful representations.
lew Court adjourned till three o'clock.
OK TUESDAY APTERNooN.-Oourtm met at o'clocl
ing Mr.. Higgins, for the dsIence, claimed tina
OF the contract spoken of oy the plaintiff ha
'his never been made, there had been pro,
and that contract existed between the proprit
ent tor of the hotel and Mr.. Henry, nor was
,rt. shown that Mr.. Henry had attempted to Sc
a a the right of supplying the hotel; it was nj
lear shown that Mr.. Reybold had sustained Ill
8 IL loss from not having the custom OF the hote
uu. Mr.. Higgins was followed by Edward
eat Bradford, who stated that 1t had been charge
that the defendant hsd been guilty of frau,
ser he denied there had been any fraud; Il
ried plaintiff had failed to prove there had n
ears been a contract if Mr.. Reybold could not su
md. cessfuIly prosecute his business he shou
er,s not attempt to force Mr., Henry to make up b
9TH. loss; damages could only be recovered upt
was actual loss; in this case there was proof
up- such damage and nothing upon which to e
innate damages.
,av. Mr.. Gordon replied to Mr.. Bradford, aft
which the Chief Justice charged the jury.
18th said where contract WAS not severed,
raa plaintiff cannot recover back part Of I
Bid amount paid, but must sue for the whole.
rant But q contract cal be severed where a val
iysd has been placed upon the different artic
the mentioned in it, whether such contract IS v,
Their bal or written. When it is proven that fra
got existed In tne inception OF Tue contract,
"a: | wherever fraud exists the contract is We
mas and the party can recover such money as W
, Wa paid upon the unexecute1 contract.
me Ia this case the Court assumed that as t
facts proven were not contradleted, and shol
yhen influence the jury in making up their min
and the right to supply the hotel has been valu
ming by Mr.. Henry AZ $4,000, as stated by the W
p in neasesi from tue testimony tno Jury were
4 to decide what Mr.. Rcybold had purchased.
INV contract between Mr.. Rsybod and Mr.. Hell
NV appears to have been made more than mol
Mr.. after Mr., Henry ceased TO supply the hotel
Al ma the question TO be dec ided was, whether
Henry made fraudulent representation in
and gard to the right and by which representa-
bid. Mr.. Reybold had been induced to purch
a or the stable; if the right had ceased to exist
iph- fore the contract the purchaser would be
,6il- titled to recover back the purchase money
eaat IL they were satisfied that the defendant
q or Represented his right to be worth $4,000,
such right did not exist, the plaintiff could
sed cover the amount paid for such right.
ting The case was given to the jury about qual
mily past seven O'Clock, who retired aud reLurr
ever 10 about half hour with verdict for
tina. plaintiff Of $4,000.
N to -------s----
der ANTON PRossT.-Very little if any chang
perceptible in the condition of Anton Pro
Ter since the death warrant was read to him