Wilmington daily commercial., 1873-05-20
eeHRf RRacEEplNos.
NEW CASTLE. May 10.

NEW CASTLE. May la.
/ The courts Of Oyer and Terminsr and General
Sessions OF the Peace and Jail Delivery, and the
Superior Courts Of New Castle county we're
opened aa 10 A. NJ, immediately after which
the court Of Oyer and Tsrm:nsr SAs adjourned
sine die.
Ths frat order of business was the reading
over the trial list. and disposing Of the cases
there, by marking them for trial, continuance
or otherwise IS the case might be. This con-
sumed about one hour The first case tried was
that OF Charles 8. Caffrey o. Minor H. Beckett
being in the case on q certain promissory note
for e3l1 80 given by Samuel g. Norcross to
UriAh Norcross, endorsed by Uriah Noroross,
and afterwards By Samuel 8. Norcross in the
firm name Of Noroross q Beckett.
EorcrOes had been originally sued with Beckett
but was returned non est iRUeRtts, hence the suit
against Beckett only. The frat witness, called
by counsel for Plaintiff was Samuel s. Norcroes
who proved the making and endorsing the note
~ aforesaid, and was questioned as to the firm
name being endorsed by him with the consent
of the defendent. At this point the counsel for
Defence objected, and an elaborate argument
followed. The defence insisting that the en-
dorsement OF commercial paper by the hrm
name was priHad facie outside of the partner
ship powers This was . note given for the in
dividusl, anteeedent debt of Norcroeel and that
the member of the firm so endorsing it. was
not competent to prove his partners assent to
the same. For the Plaintiff it was contended
that this was perfectly legitimate transaction
TO be charged and that no fraud had been shown
or alleged by the pleadings TO exclude the wit
ness. Also that the verdict would not effect
the witness, he would be liable to be sued
elsewhere on this note Authorities pro aud
con we're cited. the Defence relying mainly on
the case OF Nithill Us. Cooper 9Th Pickering 4l4
and on some New York aud Euglish 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 to
prove viz that his co-pArtuer at the time the
/ vote was given assented to his endorsing it in
/ the firm name. He was interested in this suit
/ to throw one half of the debt on his partner,
and this judgment could be given in the evidence
| against him.
Another witness was called who proved these
| facts andBecketts assent to the use OF the firm
name. The case was submitted without argu-
ment and the jury rendered verdict fer the
| plaintiff for S400 10.
| In another and similar case on q promissory
/ note for 1909. ~ between the-same parties judg-
/ ment WAS given for plaintiff for S399 80. T. f.
Bayard, Esq. for plaintiff in both cases. George
| Gray and Alex. b. Cooper, Esqs., for defence.
The next case tried was that Of Rilliam F
| Smalley L Co., rs Zebulon r, McKinsey, action
on book account, proved by the books of the
plaintiff and by the testimony of another witness
as to the acknowledgement of the debt by de-
fendAnt. Jury retired, aud and up to 6 o'clock
had not returned. T. f. BayArd, Esq, for plain
/ tin. Defendant was unrepresented.
Case OF Elizabeth Z. ODaniel Va. Bakers
| Union of Wilmington. Action on the case fol
| damage to Plaintiffs house by defendants dig
ging the cellar OF their building adjoining. so 81
i to leave plaintiffs foundation wall exposed to
the elements, and pool OF water which there
collected ran into plaintiffs cellar and flooded it
and that the wall OF plaintiffs house was, by thii
| negligence of defendants, cracked and seriously
injured, rendering 1t unsafe for habitstion. Only
| two or three witnesses were examined for plain
| tiff, when Court adjourned till tomorrow morn
i ing at ten O'Clock.