Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1874-12-10
the COURTS.
wEDSEsD.AY.
Court re-assemoled alto o'clock, Judges Woot'
en- Honston and Wales nm the hancb

wEDSEspAY.
Court re-AssemDled alto o'clock, Judges Wuot
en-, Houston, and Walee on the bench.
1t was announced to the Court that the jur,
in the Woodward Case were ready to come down
The prisoner was brought in. He appeared Gu
urey calm, evidently anticipating verdict OF
scquittal, and whom tho jury rendered a verdict
OF mot guilty" it created but little surprise al
nearly every one had expected such termina
ton. The Court discharged the prisoner, bu,
there being another indictment against him foi
An assault with intent to Kill John Shelley, he
entered bail in tie sum of "a 600 for his appear.
nnce ut the next term Of Court, Albln Bucklng-
ham becoming lis surety.
The Civil List was then taken up, the first
case called being that OF John Mines Us. @. Il j.
Pyle, Garnishees,of Richard Johnson. This case
was FL Fa. attachment case. II arose from a
case that WAS tried some two years ago, when a
suit WAS brought by Mines against johnson for
q, balance due him for the erection of house.
The jury then rendered verdict giving judg-
mant for the plaintiff for .i4j 80, but finding nc
goods or money Of Johnson in his own name, ali
attachment WAS laid III the hands of Q. ~ j.
Pyle in whose employ johnson was. The de-
fence set up,was that at the time tile attachment
was laid there was but sl0 in their hands due
johnson, but they reserved his wages and ad-
yanced money, on an average IL week, in or
der to keep him in their employ, he being a
good workman. After argument BY eo',nsei tue
Bird fol plaintiff Lore for defendant
| The next case was
+. Jefferson 4 Son Us. George +. Brady 4
Co., This WAS suit of collision where the de-
fendants were owners Of tug which had four
barges in tow, and in passing through the Del
aware Il chesapeake canal, ON the 25th of March,
| 1873, two OF these bargee collided with the
sloop Helen, having on board 1000 bushels OF
corn belonging to the plaintiffs. Fro0this col.
lision the Helen sunk and the corn became 30
damaged that it was afterwards worthless. The
plaintiffs were still examining witnesses when
the court adjourned. Tho case viii probably
take up all day tomorrow.
THURSDAY.
| Court opened at 10 o'clock, Judges wootcn and
Houston on the bench. The case of E. Jefferson
OK. Brady 4 Co. was continued. At twenty. five
| minutes OF IL o'clock the plaintiffs rested their
case, and Bayard for Brady and Co., stated their
defense, which appears to be substantially as-
| follows:
Mr. Bayari commenced by saying that ii WAS
an established rule Of law that the party aleg-
ing the act Of negligence, either of omission or
commission. must show that by no act on their
part they.added to such negligence. The defence
set up in this case WAS that the plaintiff did add
materially to this collision and had the captain
of.the sloop Helen, the boat collided with, taken
the necessary precautions, this collision would
would show that on this occasion the
the tug Swallow" was well fitted for her work,
that she WAS in good or,ssr, and skilifully man
aged, and that her speed did not exceed the law
full regulation that there was y whistle blown
wArni the parties in charge of the barges and
that the captain and engineer Of the tug did ey-
erything that human being could do to prevent
the accident. He said that mere accident not
carelessiy brought about would hold the parties
liable. The first witness called was Captain
smithers Of the tug "Swallown he was
sworn on roi due Mr.. Whitley OBJ
jeeted to his being examined, claiming that he
was an agent of Brady 4 Co., and in the event
Of their losing this suit he would be Ii
able to suit against him, brought by Brady
Co., for negligence. He therefore
was interested in the result OF the case, Are
lease was drawn discharging Mr.. Smithers from
any possibility Of suit against him signed
by two of the firm Of Brady & Co.. but OH offer
ing it to the Court Mr.. Whitley objected to it,
contending that by law the release must be |
signed by all Of the partners, there being four
IN n the e. hrm OF y. 90. The Court sustained
asking permission of the Court to amend the re-
lease and cite authorit. on tho roipr After
examining Two witnesses foi the defence, the I
court adjourned until 3 o'clock.
Court reassembled at 3 o'clock. The exami- |
nation Of witness for defence was proceeded
with and continued until the adjournment Of |
Court. As this case proceeds some interest is |
being manifested. About $1,000 is involved in |
the SUIT, and every point is being warmly con- |
tested by counsel on both sides. Several wit
nesses remain to be examined, and the case will |
probably not be concluded before tomorrow at
noon, d it will most likely be argued at some
length. II not submitted without argument we
will sketch those Of both sides, as well as the
charge Of the court.
FRIDAY.
Court met this morning, at the usual hour
Judges Wooten and Houston on the bench.
The case Of E. Jefferson u.s. Brady Co. action
Tor damages to the sloop Helen by collision with
the barge O. A. Dorwi2td, while being towed by
the tug S1d4ow, in the Chesapeake Il Delaware
Canal, was continued. The whole of the morn
the defense. The intention Of the defendants
ls to show that they were guilty OF no negligence
Or that If they were, that there was contributory
negligence on tho part OF the plaintiff, and hence
they could not recover. The defense closed at
r. NJ, wheu the court took recess until 2L
o'clock.
Court re-assemblei at the appointed hour
when Mr.. Whteley then commenced his opening
argument. Turning to the court he addressed
them upon the Law question arising in the case
ue q'iotod Slsry on Agency as authority for tho
general proposition that If the master OF a ship
runs down another vessel negligently, the own
or OF the ship ls liable for damages. He then
announced and argued eiahoratety the following
/. Where ship towed is under the direction
and control of a tug, the tug il liable for COLI
sion.
2. That barges or tow in canals are slways un-
der the control and direction OF the tug.
8. That il q tug with tow approaching Il ves-
sci towed by mules, stops her headway aud puts
her tow into confusion and causes collision there
by the tug il responsible
4. That it Is the duty of n captain of a tug lny-
ing tow in the canal, to see that each barge of
his tow il steered, and If collision happens 1.-TWO
barges not having been steered) by any one OF
the unsteered barges collidipg with 4loop or
vessel the tug is liable.
8. That il Captain Robinson put tho Helen
ashore, when lie saw the barges yawng lie did
all lie was obliged to do, both under the rules of
the canal and under the demands OF prudence
and care, he having the right of the channel, or
way, under the rules of the canal
g. That IL it is the custom or duty for mule
tows to tie up when they SEQ a tug, with tow
and the captain Of the tug
sees that the mule tow has not done so 1t is the
duty Of the captain Of the tug to stop before he
gets to the vessel.
7. That Captain Robinson did all his duty re-
quired when lie threw OIL his line. steered his
vessel past the tug and bar ;es and . and then
grounded her.
=. That Captain Robinson was under no obl-
CATION to tie, even if he saw the barges waving
Ut tho distance the tow was Off, provided he was
IN his right place that 1t was the tugs duty to
strait straighten up the barges, either BY pntting on
the tug and its tow out OF the H,ien's way
.. That where vessel liz at wharf or aground
In channel where she is lawfully, in case Of
collision with Or by tug or its tow the tug is
10. That the law requires that If vessels are in
tile way OF a tug or from other causes navigation
is dangerous, the tug with its tow is bound to
proceed with great caution.
IL. That the law requires from necessity. in
canal where tow is made up of boats belonging
to different owners and separately commanded.
that the tug must have control of the tow.
IL. Thst the privilege OF monopoly Of towing,
rs in the case of the defendants, makes the ting
liable because the barges obliged to take the
defendants power or tow themselves, and that
being 30 the tug is bound to tow safely both to
Mr.. Whitley at the conclusion OF his address
to the court turned to the jury and gave rapid
resume OF the evidence for the plaintiff, and
was followed by Henry Pepper, Esq, who re-
viewed the evidence for the defense.
At 8 p. m. court adjourned until 10 a. M to-
morrow. II. Z, L.