Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1869-05-20

WEnNEspAY. MAY ia.

the 9Th day OF May 1873, to stand one hour in Ii
pillory, and to be whipped with thirty lashcs.
State vs.. Dennis +. Dougherty, indicted for ti
: Iarceny Of pair Of boots from Amos Carter
G Bates Tor State, Lore for defence. The evldent
III lhis case was To the effect that Carter on
night In tho latter part OF February, 1860 was Ii
vihd by Dougherty TO go into the Phonix cngn
house, being in state of intoxication ho lai
down and went toslcep, when he awoke his boot
were gone, afterwards got the boots from peic
f officer. Verdict-not guilty.
State vs. George w. Thompson indicted John
: " with john Journey for the larceny Of one geld
Ing, the property Of sevis II. Sambom. Journe
! non est.
State VS.. George W. Thompson, indicted fo
stealing leather head halter from Lewis Il
! l.nmborn. The evidence In both cases WINS nenrl
ne same, both offences having been COMMITTEE
ut The same time; that they were found in th
possession OF Mr.. Atkinson of Red Bank, Ne,
Jersey, who had bnught the gelding and halle
from Thompson. Vtrdict-guiliy, in both cnses
Sentenced TO pay as restitution money 1850, fine
42O, stand one hour in the pilory and be whip
ped with 20 lashcs-in the first charge for Il,
second charge to pay MS restitution money $500
costs, IMPRISONED one year, whipped with
inshes and for six months after wear q convict
Jacket.
State We. Jas. Christy, indicted for exposing
goods for sale on the Sabbath day. A noHe pro
was entered on payment of costs.
State VS.. John Ditterline- assault with inten
for defendant.
George II. Leach testified to having been il
| Ntbrker's beer saloon was assaulted by Otter
lne, and cut In the head with knife.
Jacob Dcrrckson and John N. Lee testified t
seeing Diitcrlinc strike Leach in the beer salo,n
all hands had been drinking. Jury out, whel
| our report closed.
State Us. Timothy Doran.-Indicted for stealing
n ham from William II. Pierce. Bates for Stat,
no defence. Verdict guilty. Sentenced to pay
| as restitution money So, costs. imprisoncd six
months, whipped with ten laslus, and for six
months after wear convicts jacket.
THURSDAY, MAY 10.
State VS.. John Dittcrline, verdict guilty OF as
sauit' sentenced to pay fine of $50 and costs.
ueorSeanna Brown who plead guilty to the
| chnfRe 81 granddaughter was sentenc to pay Il
ilne al $1,000 and be imprisoned one year.
The civil list was then taken up and jury en-
pannell.d TO ty the case Of Eber Jones, Jr., b. a.
". David !. Richards, d b. r. Appeal. Whitley
| Tor plaintiff Harrington for defendant The EVIL
dence In this case was that Richards had been
employed by Mr. Lewis Fell, the administrator
OF the estate OF Rodnun WALTON decd. to sell a
| iarhi III Chester county at public sale. The farm
not having been sold Mr.. Richards took Mr.
Jones TO see 1t, who agreed to take 1t far $1,000
and paid Mr.. Richards 800 for taking him up To
ser aud for his services In securing HIM the farm.
The defence commended that Mr.. Jones had paid
Richards the ono hundred dollars for services
rendered; he was not entitled TO recover it that
voluntary act on jones' part
Jocl V. Grccnman vs.. David G. Wilson's exec
'itUrs. Assunlsit on book account Lore for
plaintiff, Whitclty for defendant. This was an
action for the recovery oil 1921 37, with interest
from March %, 1865. The account ran through
long number of years. The defence pleaded
s267.U7. f''
Ensli.h. Action Oh the case Nields for plain
TN, Bayard for defendant. This action was
brought fy Jacob Pryor the father aud admins
tor Of Genrge Pryor ed. for services rendered
by his sun in The u s. army as u substitute Tor
was then II minor.
The court here took n recess until Tomorrow
morning at 10 o'clock The jury In the case OF
Jones VI. Richards still out
FRIDAY, May 14th.
fciied.
TIE eighteen special Jurors summoned to at
TEND The Court Of Oyer and Termincr alone OK
eept th0sc enlpanelleu in the case Of Pryors Ad-
ambassadors vs. English, were discharged from
further attendance this term OF Court
Inc cxarination of witnesses in the case of
George Pryor's administrators against Thomas
Engllsl was then proceeded with.
James Hall testified that he had known George
from MS killarney, ard that at the time of his en-
lisimcnt .. substitute for Eugligh, he was abnut
10 year. old
H.. II.
NJ harrington and Anthony Higgins testified MS
to the price paid ur substitutes during the war
rniie iug from 800 to $500.
he plaintiff here rested.
Wincssc. iur defence were then examined
samuel Hutchinson, sworn.-Sume time in
1861 agreed with Jacob Pryor to give him $500
for his two sOns-Robert and George, 300 of
which were TO 20 10 the two boys, the balance To
the lhthrr. Afterwards sold George to Mr.. Eng
fish for $3.50; he went for two years. Jncub re-
crived 800 additional, making In Mi 5000 paid
him for George; 600 was paid to George.
Messls: Wics and Joncs testified To having
witnessed the agreement between Hutchinson
aud Plinr ST., and The signing OF the receipts
given Hutchinson for the money by Pryor.
Defence closed. Case argued, occupying the
balance Of the day until O'clock, p. In. vcr-
diet for dccndeut.
7 he jury in The case of Jones VS.. Richards.
came down from their room ut about one O'Clock
and were discharged, not having been able to
agree, after consultation of aver "a hours.
The c'se Of jacob Pryor VS.. Nehemiah Downs
was discontinued.
w. Il. PennypaplScr s. Co. vs. John Russell. |
Verdict for plaintiff S1G2.96.
SATURDAY, May 10.
The case of James l.. Stuart vs.. Morrow and |
Herbert was taken up; Baynrd for Plaintiff and |
Lore ~ Nieds Defendants This was an action of |
rcpleviu brought Tor the recovery of the stock. |
fixtures and appurtenancrs of u bakery and con- |
l,clioucry store ut the corner OF Sixth and Spruce
streets, IN the city of Wilmington. The identi- |
~ Of tile gouds taken was admitted, the question
at issue being HAT OF tho Ownership Of the prop
erty whether IL WAS that of James l., Stuart or |
john b, Stuart ny claimed by the defendants at |
At The tine IL was seized by the constable.
he evidence for the prosecution was TO the |
effect that John 8. Stuart had owned the store |
aud h%lurts ut the corner Of Sixth and Spruce |
streets and on the 26th day of December, 1867, |
had sold out to james l.. Stuart Samuel NJ.
Harrington. Esq t, stl1ed to having dawn the |
blll-oi-sac for John b. and James L Stuart, and |
also 81 drawing up the letter of attorney Tor |
John II. Stuart to act ns agent for james L. Stu |
art and 10 carry IN tho bushes for him. ! made |
II careful examination in order to satisfy my con-
science that in drawing up the bill-of-salc | |
would be doing nothing 10 defraud any one. l |
believe that II wa q hOnaflde sale
Charles CUrbus and John Merriweather testl- |
ed to having been employed by Jamcs L. Stuart
a'ttr the sale had been made by John Is. Stuart;
that james l.. Stuart was recognized as the pro-
prlslor after The 26th day of December 1867.
The evidence for the defence was to show that |
James l.. Stuart nj the time of the alleged sale |
was in'olycnt aud not able financially to buy The
store and fixtures; that James L. and John b. |
remained Jointly in possession after the sale.
Case argued. The jury after an absence of
about about Que hour returned verdict for PLAIN
TIL, anu assessed the damages ut SIX cents and |
costs
James l., Stuart Va. VIM. Herbert, Sheriff.
Bnyard for plaintiff, Nicds and Lore for dcicn-
iaut The cause of action and character OF this
''oN ""o cihiiui W tut ouc Just lIltu, lut VIII
ncsses and evidence being nearly the same. The
examination of witnesses occupied the afternoon
until about haf-past five o'clock, wbeg the Court
adjourned until Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
MONDAY, MAY IL.
The case of James l.. Stewart VS.. William Her.
argued by Thomas 4. Bnynrd |
Esq, for the plaintiff and Messrs. Nieds and
Lore for the defendant. Judge WoOten charged
the jury and ut about half past IL O'Clock they re-
Tired 10 their chamber for consultation, aud ut
half past o'clock returned verdict for tho
costs.
jury was cmpannelled to try the case of
James l.. Stewart vs.. William Dorun. Action OF
replevii. Bayard for plaintiff. Lore for defendant
The evidence and witnesses 10 this case were
nearly the same as the two last. Verdict for
plaintiif cents and costs.
james Filsby, lessee, vs.. Western johnson, Ct.
M.-Ejrctment.
Bradford and Higgins for plaintiff; Bayard for
defence.
This action is brought by James Frsby and
Mary Jane, his wife, To recover certain piece Or
parcel of land and the houses thereon situated In
the city 0. Wilmington, now In the possession of
Western johnson and others.
Severn johnson, the father of Western johnson,
died possessed of these lands in fee simple, but
had made no will Mary Jane Firstly claims to
be the legitimate heir OF Severn johnson, and
entitled In law To tine possession of this property