Delaware State journal and statesman., 1869-10-12

supposed TO rest with their present posses
sor. The judge THOUGHT not, as 1t was not
10 be contended could have had either in
terest or liability in the company before the
date of the sale The case, however, was
complicated still further by the opposing
counsel bringing evidence as to the previous
owner of the iron safe, and endeavoling to
prove that his liability in respect of the
shares actually terminated twelve months
previous to my purchase, so as to fix me with
responsibility for the interim. 1t appeared
that the sale and IFS contents, some eighteen
months back, had belonged to Mr.. Wendle,
n shareholder In the company; that IN auul-
ton to the certificates, it had contained his
cash-box and q quantity of gold and notes,
and that the safe had been stolen from his
office, the notes and gold, and cash-box re-
moved by the robbers, who had obtained
wax impression Of his key, and the value
less safe containing the shares, sold to an
ironmonger who put it into the safe. This
Mr.. Wendle had applied for duplicates oil
the share certificates, which were refused by
the company until lie could prove the de-
struction of ihe old ones. Unsuccessful in
this, and disirusiing the reckless business OF
| the "Undeniable and Unlimited" " he al last
! applied TO have the shares standing in his
name cancelled, ahich had been done. II
would therefore follow, 1t was contended,
that my liability embraced the whole twelve
month, from the ishe Mr.. Wendle's name
had been erased, 70 the stoppage OF the COM
pany, being the next registered proprietor.
Against this it was argued that whatever
/ MIR. Wendle might have written TO the com
pnny. the certificates, anhen found, were ms
property; and that after they wero stolen,
thev none the less ceased 10 be his property.
And if so, my counsel proceeded, there
would he q very remarkable point for the
decision of his lOrdship. For he went on TO
A.. of
the whole OF his money, had committed sui
eide under such determined circumstances.
that even tue charity of coroner's jury had
been constrained to pronounce 1t Jet0 40 ses
and lie had been buried without funeral rites.
Wherefore, as the certificates of which he
had been robbed were still his properly IN
the eye of the law, it would follow, from bis
being .fel0 de Sc, that they became the pro
perty OF the crown, consequent on his act.
But il they were the property OF the crown
the crown was liable for thattwelye months,
and again, the safe could not be legally sold
without authority from the crown; and his
client could not be the legal buyer, nor, con
sequent1y, have any right, title, or liability
in the shares aforesaid. -,
In addition to all this. But no; VIII
spare the reader the further particulars O.
, this involved case. Suffice 1t to say that !
! was decided in my favor; but II was carried
to higher court, where was required Il
I show cause why the verdict should not b.
4 set aside and entered for the plaintiff, on thu
y ground of the decision being contrary Il
4 evidence. There it was all gone over again
@ with the addition that the original thieye
G were produced, one OF them no other thai
h my burglars friend Toney (and wa
q threatened with an action by the maker c
the safe for stating that Toney. broke ope
e the "Unimpeachable" in five minutes in m
Ii outhouse.) Here the decision went againi
le me. Finally, the case came before IN
IN bench of Judges, where a majority of one re
" yersed the ruling OF the lower court.
y was therefore at last so far successful
n the issue as 10 find mYselyin the Bankruptc
/ Couit, on account of the legal expenses m
he precious trial had accumulated. The on
er satisfaction attending this result was, that
or must inevitably have gone there had los
nd The very sight of a safe catalogue is no
er sufficient 10 produce from Mrs. 7. sniff
in about the capacity of three volume move