Wilmington daily gazette., 1873-05-22
COURT PRocEEplMcs.
NEW CAsrLR, Nav 2l, 1873.

Hs Hf NEW CASTbbt may SA,toto'
The Courts were opened this morning, at the
usual hour
ON motion Of William r. Hodgsou, Esq, James
Tcomey was discharged from further custody.-
(He was held in default Of bail for the dssortion
Of his wife and chilly. t +t
The Court also discharged from further custody,
one John Griffin, col, who had been confined 70
Jail in default OF bail since Nov. II, 1872, on the
charge of bastardy, on the motion of w. h.
Hodgson, Esq, as counsel for the Trustees OF the
Poor Of New Castle county.
During the day the Sheriff received q lettor
from his ExOVlleney the Governor of the State re-
mitting much Of the sentence of the law, in the
of the State, Mary A. MestOer, the cOlOred
woman convicted OF murder in the second degroo,
at the last session OF the Court OF Oyer aud Ter
miner, as relates to the "whipping" and "pilloTy
until June 18th next until he could look into the
matter, and prepare tho papers; also remitting
| the "Whipping''in in the case Of stats Va. John
SShurtz, and John Downing, convicted OF larceny
| at this Term, until the same day, 18th of June.
There docs not seem 10 be much adoubt IN the
| mind OF those best acquainted with the former
| case, but thAtthis action of 0ovcrhor Ponder is
| ltantamouht TO final remission of this much OF
| tho sentsncc. I.s
The case Of Mrs. s. O'DAnel vs.. the Bakers
Uuion, which has bSen on trial for several days,
was again resumed the defence couuning the
| examination OF their witnesses closing their evil
dence at about lllS A. NJ, when the plaintiff in
troduced some additional testimony iI reply, clos
ing at l21{.
There has been in this case somo SO Witnesses
| examined on both aides, aud frequently some ol
| them have been called more th n once thus caus-
ing great length of time. Mr. Patterson, the
Counsel for the plaintiff began his opening argu-
/ ment to the jury at tho above hour, aud concluded
at about O'Clock, during which he eltSd many
authorities both Eagllsh and American, as to the
question OF damages, aud the rule OF assessing its
different kinds. -
Mr.. Bird replied in an elaborate Argument, and
| one of great length receiving this authorities Of
Mr. Patterson, aud citing many Of his own, in
| support Of the defendants side OF the question.
He dWelt at cOnsiaerable length ON the point,
brought out in the evidence, aud on which he re-
lied, that, as the base OF Mrs. ODaniel's founia-
tiOn wall was over on the ground IF the defend
| ant (some is inchsS) and had been there for up
| wards Of 20 yeaTT, that she was trespaSSsT, and
such possession was not hnRdVelse one, as would
give her title by pFescrPiIen from the fact that
| the rule OF lawwas That a. title by prescription
| could only be gained by holding adversely, Of
right, aud with knowledge on notice to the de-
fendant OF such possession, which, in this case
| could not or had not been shown. As the holding
had been at tho foot of the wall completely hid
from the eyes Of this defendant, or any one slss
except the very person who had built her wall, a0d
that such holding could not, from the faCts proven
in the case, be an adverse one as Of right in any
sense OF the word, and that it followed she was :
| traepasser as to the amount OF ground her wall
covered, and that they had the right so to treat
her. and did 50, when they built on the part OF heI
/ wall thus on them. .... . p
That If she had title to this much of thciI
ground, thus obtained She by the same rule, could
acquire right to or feet, or, in fact: tho wholC
of 1t. while in fact no QUO would be aware Of il
until the time allowed by law GO years) had ex
pired and she came forward and enforced hel
claim by an ejectment. He cited many decisions
Of tho Courts TO sustain him on this point as vel
as to his point, that Mrs. Daniel had notice o
the fact that the Bakers Union were digging OF
the extremity of their lot, and adjoining her, anC
that she had made 40 objection in any manner.
| 1T about quarter to six, L. n, Mr.. Bird begal
TO addrees the Jury, and continued until the hOu
of adjournment had arrived, leaving his argument
unfinished.
At p M..the Court adjourned until 10 O'clOcl
| Tomorrow.