Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1870-12-15
NUMBER 2O7.


Evan g. stotsenburg, for the use of VIM. H.
Pierson us Alexander Sa Vile and Estrange
Could contractor Mr.. Gould did not appear
in the case. This was an action brought to re-
cover for material furnished under the following
circumstances VIM. H. Pierson s surviving
partner of the firm Of j. d. Pierson y Bro The
firm owed Mr.. Sa Vile, and he purchased sash
and other material. Other material was furnished
by VIM H. Pierson after the death of ]. d.
Pierson. This, Mr.. Sa Vile claimed, was on
account of the indebtedness OF j. ID. Pierson u
Bro to him. furnished by the plaintiff as sur
yiying partner Of the firm. Mr.. Pierson claimed
payment Of the amount as due to him personality
The evidence was volumnous, and with the
arguments occupied all day. The Jury rendered
a verdict for defendant Patterson for plaintiff,
Gordon for defendant
TUESDAYS PROCEEDINGS.
William H. Jones Us. MANI Il Ball. Action Of
assumpsit for moving machines sold and de-
livered by plaintiff to defendants. Plaintiff re-
lied on book account of goods sold and delivered
by him to defendants. 1t was contended on the
part of the defence: l. That no partnership
existed between MANI Il Ball. 2. That If any
partnership existed at all it did not exist with
regard to the goods sold. 3. That the articles
were furnished to John Manz in his individual
capacity before tho date of such partnership and
upon special written contract made with said
MANI, and that said contract remained open and
unperformed by the plaintiff and therefore pre-
vented plaintiff from recovering in this action
against the partnership on the common account
The evidence occupied all the day.
WEDNESDAYS PROCEEDINGS.
The case of Jones us MANI Il Ball was resumed,
and with the arguments Of counsel (Lore for
plaintiff and Gordon Nields for defendants) and
the charge of the court occupied all the morning.
THE CLOSING PROCEEDINGS : ADJOURNMENT OF
COURT.
We brought our Court proceedings up to
Wednesday noon, when the jury had just gone
out in the case of Jones us Urmy d MANI. This
jury subsequently came in, prepared, it was un-
derstood, to render verdict for the defendants,
but the plaintiff failed to answer when called,
and was non-suited
The next case taken up was that Of Schoen Us
McComb. Patterson for plaintiff, Gordon and
Bates for defendant. This was an action for
,a and ,a6s the evidence Ss in hs ioo%s
Mr.. schoen owns the property at
No. 615 Orange street. Col McComb formerly
owned the adjoining property lNo; 6l9,) but has
transferred it to Mrs. Mrs. McComb, his mother.
There has for long time peen dispute as to
the line between these two properties, which
made treuble between Mr.. Hyde, former owner
of Schoens property and Col. McComb, in 1856,
concerning the effort of the latter to set his
fence over to the full limit claimed by him, but
Hyde resisted, and finally it was set over some
five OF seven inches Some months ago, Col.
McComb directed workmen to tear down the
fence, and set it forward seven or eight
inches OH the property occupied by Schoen
to the line McComb claims his deed calls for.
Schoen resisted and cut down the posts as fast as
the workmen put them up. Finally there came
a suspension OF hostilities and Schoen brought
action for trespass. The case occupied all of
Wednesday afternoon and all day Thursday.
Yesterday morning the counsel made their argrl-
ments and after dinner the court charged the
jury who subsequently rendered verdict for
plaintiff allowing him S135. for damages. The
verdict in effect confirms Schoen's title to the
ground in dispute.
The other case taken up was the Newport Ma
tional Bank ps John Tweed noticed more fully
elsewhere, after which Court finally adjourned