Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1873-05-24
NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURT
Along nstcf uiulsuits Disposed Of
New Sury 70 be Drawn.

'
Along Listcf uivilBuits Disposed Of
New Sury 70 be Drawn.
atAN
NsY CLsTIh. May 18th, 1s7s.-Th
CoprtA Of Oyer and Terminer and Genera
Sessions Of the Peace and Jail Deliver
and the Superior Court for New Castl
County were opened at 10, am. imtnedl
stsly after whi.h the Court of Over an,
Termihsr was adjourned sias die. r. 81 :
The 1rst order OF business was III,
reading over the trial list, and dIsposln,
Of the cases therein by marking them fo
trial, continuance, or otherwise, as thl
case might be. This consumed about on,
hour The nrst case tried VISA thai O
Charles q. Cafirey 10. Minor n. Becketi
being an action on the case on a certaIr
promIssory. note for 1911 so, given b,
Samuel s Norcross 70 Uriah Norcross
endorsed by Urlah Norcroes aud amer
wards by Samuel 3. Norcroas, In the frrr
aAme Of Norcross & Beckett.
-fNororoes had been originally sued Will
Beckett but wss.returnes non AZ isssnfss
henee the suit against Beckett only. Til,
frat witness called by counsel for plain
tin was Samuel 8. Norcross, who proved
the making and endorsing the note al
aforesaid, and was questioned a. to IL.
hrm pame being endorsed by bin with
the consent Of the defendant. At this
point the counsel for defence objected
aud an elaborate argument followed
the defence, insisting that the endorse
mept Of commercial paper, by the hrn
name, was prtna Jaeis outside Of the
parlnership powers, (thls was a note
given for the Individual, antecedent debt
Of Noreross,) and that the member Of
the drm 30 endorsing Il, was not compe.
tent 10 prove his partner, assent to the
same FOR the plaintiff II was contended
that this was perfectly legitimate trans
action II done with the consent Of the
partner, enough to be charged, and thai
no fraud had been shown OF alleged BY
the pleadings 70 exclude the witness, also
that the verdict would not feet the wit.
ness, as be. would be liable to be sued
elsewhere on this note. Authorities pro
Ant Ton were cited, the defence relying
mainly on the case Of Nothill ". Cooper,
9th, Pickering, Ala, and on some New
York aud English deciaiops.
The Court decided TO exclude the testl
nony Of the witness, saying that he
was not competent to~ establish the fact
which he was called to prove, viz, that
bis eo.pAftner at the time the note was
fften, assented TO his endorsing lt In the
firm name. He was interested in this
suit 10 throw one-half Of the debt on his
partner, and this Judgment could be
given In evidence, against him.
Appetizer witness was called, who
proved these facts and Beckett's assent
tosthe use Of the firm name, The case
was submitted without argument, and
the Jury rendered a verdict for the plain
uf for t400.15.
In another and similar case on a prom.
lssoTy note for $500 ~, between the same
parties, Judgment was given for plaintiff
for e39e.s9. 7. y. Bayard, Esq., for
plaintiff Ia both cases George Gray and
Alexander r. Cooper, Esqs., for defence.
The next case tried was that Of WIN.
v. smalley x Co. ". Zebulon X. McKin-
sey, action on book account; proved by
the books Of the plaintiff and by the tes-
timony Of another witness as TO the
acknowledgement Of debt by defendant.
Jury retired and up 10 0 O'Clock had not
returned. 7. +. Bayard, Esq for plain
til. Defendant was unrepresented. e
Case OF Elizabeth f. 0'Daniel vs.. Ba-
ktrs' Union OF Whining ton action on
the case for damage TO plaintiffs house
byeOnduct. Of defendants In digging the
ctilaT of their building adjoining, so AS
70 leave plaintiffs foundation wall ex-
posed 10 the elements, and pool OF
water which there collected ran into
plaintiffs cellar and flooded IL, and that
the wall of plaintiffs house was, BY this
negligence Of defendants, cracked and
sehohsly injured, rendering Il unsafe for
hebitaiion. Only two or three witnesses
were examined for plainulI, when Court
adjourned till tomorrow morning al II
o'clock.
TUKsDAY.
RHw CASTLE, May goth, 197S.--Tht
verdict of the Jury In The case Of VIM
y. Bmalley 4 Co. H. Zebulon X. McEin.
ssy was for tue plaintiff Of s4S6,12
Tue whole of the day Was taken nj
with the continuation of the caee OIL
ElizabethE. O'Daniels ". the Bakers
Union of Wilmington, being devoted ex
elusiyely TO the examintion Of Witnesses
the stray of whom for the plaintiff wal
very extensive, numbering thirty or more
Their examination was, however, com
pleted during the afternoon counsel fol
defence l.. g. Bird, Eco. The plaintiff
was represented by JOHN G. Patterson
Esq, who opened his case and partially
eKanined two witnesses.
The facts as proved BY the plaintiff
witnesses were substantially that In thu
spring aad fall Of 1871, defendant hat
the cellar OF their house, which adjoini
plaintiffs, at Fourth ane Walnut Streets
dug below The Foundation walls Of plain
tl17s house, causing said walls to sinl
and thereby cracking the walls and cell
ing OF plaintiffs house very badly, rem
deTlag Is unsafe " live In, and damaging
It,, az testified 10 by various witnesses, u
tbe amount Of from $500 to $500. Tha
laid cellar OF defendants was allowed 4
stand with two or three feet Of waite
collected ip II, which WORKED us way int
plaintiffs cellar through the walls thereof
That > portion OF the tin on plaintiff
roof was torn on by the workmen Of
defepdant's building, without being re
placed and that holes were made Il
plaintiffs roof, by which holes from tn
removal Of the tin, the rain came Int
plaintiffs house and Injured Il dlseoloI
Ing the paper Sc and that the damag
aud Injury was thu result Of negligence
on the part OF the defendant 10 dlggin
below plaintiffs foundation walls aud On
dermingiug chem without having theI
underpinned.
The defence set up was that upon dlg
gi1R down, the plalnliti's foHndafl0
wall was found 70 extend Is inches beyon
and over her line, upon defendant's Lame
and, NOT choosing 70 give plaintiff thu
ground, defendant had built their wa
upon piainuff7s,
That plaintiffs house was cracked b
fore the digging for and ereetion Of th
building Tor the Bakers Union, and tbs
plaintiffs foundation wall was rotter
and defendant used every precAution nj
ceisAry In the construction OF their ow
wall, 20 es not toilDJure that OF plaintiff
Ohly two witnesses had been called f
dsfsper, when at twenty minutes befoi
six O'clock, George B. Rodney, Esq
ChaIrlnap Of The Committee appoiulS
fpr this purpose, Al a meeting OF Tue n
Association ri New Castle county, be
this aftsrpopn al New Castle, present.
70 the Coutt resolutions Of respect 70 u
memory ofNietor 0teeu, &c.,, decease
elsewhere published 10 this paper( al
accompanied their presentation With
few remarks pertinent TO the oecaslC
and becoming the memory Of the d
ceased. The resolutions were read
the Clerk and ordered by the Court to
spread At large pom the record, Iinmed
ately amer which, Court adjourned :
tomorrow ut 10 u. m.
ntiNt WEDNESDAY.
NHw CASTLE, May 21st, 1878 IT
Courts were opened this morning at Il
- usual hour. " ~
~ On hoilo1 OF VIM. r. Hodgson, Re-
NJ IaIhea TooneY was discharged from Ii
tler custody. (He was held ip default
ball Tor the deseItion Of hls wife a
ehld9 The Court alyo discharged e