Wilmington daily gazette., 1873-05-20
HeuRT pRoceEDlRns.
NEW CAgTr.h, nav i9, ISIS

NEM CASIlE, tAAy 10 Aot0s
The Courts Of Oyer and TermineR and General
Sessions OF tho Peace and Jail Delivery, and the
Superior Court for New Castle county, were open.
cd q 10 A. NJ Immediately AFTER which the Court
Of Oyer and TerminoF was adjourned SiRe de.
The first order Of business was the reading over
of the trial list and disposinglof the cassa therein,
by marking them for trial, continuance or other
wise as the case might be. This consumed about
one nour The Arst case tried was that OF Charles
g. Caffrey VS. Minor H. Beckett, being an action
on the case certain promissory note, for $3ll.-
so given by Samuel s. NorcrOss to UriAh Norcross
and afterwards by Samuel s, Norcross in the firm
name of Norcross and Beckett. Noreross bad been
originally sued with Beckett but was returned
non tst tRpentuS hence the suit against Beckett
only The rst witness called 10y counsel Tor PLAIN
t;ii was Samuel 5. NoTcross, who proved tho max
ing and endorsing the note as Aforesaid, and was
questioned US TO the firm name being endorsed by
mm with tho consent of tho defendant AT tins
pout the counsel for defence objected and an elab-
"rn argument followed, the defence insisting that
tile endorsement OF commercial paper by the Iirm
name was pyiynd fdcio outside OF the partnership
powers (this was note given tor the individual
antecedeut debt of NSrcross) aud that the members
of the firm So endorsing it, was not competent to
prove his partners assent 70 the same. For the
Plaintiff it was coutended that this was perfect
ly legitimate transaction II done with the consent
OF the partner sought TO be charged, and that no
fraud had been shown alleged by the pleadings,
to exclude the witness, also that the verdict would
uot affect the Witness as he would be liable TO be
sued elsewhere on tins note Authorities pro and
con were cited, the defence relying mainly on the
case Of Nethill VS. Cooper Sta Pickering, Ala and
on some New York and English decisions.
The Court decided to exclude the testimony of
the witness, saying that he was not competent to
establish the fact which he was called 10 prove,
viz that his co-paItner at the time the note was
given nssented to his endorseing it III the firm
name. lie was interested in this suit to throw
ono hall Of the debt his partner, and this judg-
me Mt could be given in evidence against him.
Another witness was called who proved these
facts ana Beckett assent to the use of the firm
name. The case was submitted without argument
and the jury rendered verdict for the plaintiff for
SI001j
In another and similar case on a promissory
note Tor S39S.72 between the same parties, judg-
meut was given for plaiRtef for $399.39 T. +.
Bayard, Esq, for plaintiff in both cases. George
Gray aud Alex. II. Cooper Esqs., for defence.
Next case tried that OF William F. Smalley
Il Co. VS.. Zebulon Il. MckInsey-actiou on book
! account proved by the books OF the plaintiff and
by the testimony of another witness to the ac-
acknowledgement of the debt by defendant. Jury re
tired and up to O'Clock had not returned. a. +.
BAysrd, Esq, tor plAintih-dsfendant was un-
represented.
Case of Elizabeth T. O'DAniel vs. Bakers Union
of Wilmington on the case for damage to
plaintiffs house by conduct of defendants in dig
ging the cellar of their building adjoining, so as
TO leave plaintiffs foundation wall exposed to the
clements and pool Of water which there collect
cd and ran into plaintiffs cellar; and flooded it,
and that the wall of plaintiffs house was by this
| negligence of dsfendants' cracked and seriously
i injured rendering it unsafe for habltation. Only
two or three witnesses were examined for plaintiff
| when court adjourned till tomorrow morning al
| 10 clock.