Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1874-12-10


part of the captain Of the sloop, and that there
fore they are not responsible for the conse
quences OF the collision, though there may hav
been negligence and want Of ordinary care
! skili and diligence on their part Such, gentle
men ia the law, and if you should DO sat
| lsfed that there was culpable negligenci
and want Of ordinary care, skill and diligence,
on the part OF the commander OF the sloop, th'
defendants are not liable for the loss and injur,
sustained by the plaintiffs by reason Of the col
lsion, whether the cpli.!iiis would or would no
have happened mad there been no such contrib
| uiye negligence or want OF care and diligenc,
on Tire part OF the sloops commander. Bott
parties sre held to an equal degree OF care An'
diligence, and to entitle IT, recover dnmag
es for an injury and loss. he mllst be blameiess
and the other the defau ing ard culpable part.
he law docs not measure the amount or extern
OF the contiibutive neg lisence, Tor it would Otter
be difficult and perhaps impossible to ascertain
whether the disaster would OF wouldnot have hap
pened ] ad there been n, cJntr,Dutive negi
gence. II Therefore the, be any, exonerates the
other party from liability
bave now said to you all that il necessary
that should say. have given you the opinion
OF tho court upon the law the facts are for you,
to deal with. II is not our province, and there
fore have expressed no opinion III reference to
them further than was Necessary for the pnr-
pose OF making myself understood in the an
Louncemcnt or the law.
have now performed my duty to the best OF
my ability, and II l have erred there il remedy
for the asgrieved party Our Judgment can bs
reviewed by higher tribunal, and should be
very happy to DO corrected if am not right.
IL now becomes your duty to perform the
responsible part in the case Which has devolved
upon yon and you will now take the case and
give IL full and careful consideration, and upon
the law as you have il from the court and the
evidence,giyen you by the witnesses make up your
verdict Ms in your beat ju lgment you shall be-
lieye 10 he Just and right, and aa tho law and
evidence not only jnstlies but requires and II
there should be error in your finding lot it BIO Of
the Judgment and not OF tho heart.
AT the conclusion of tho charge the baiiif wal.
sworn and the jury retired
The next case taken up WAS John Mines Va.
q, J. Pyle, Garmisloes OF Richard Johnson-
attacL rislit # ia /; plea Auiia Iona. Bird for
the plaintiff Lore for defendants. The history
of this case is as follows In 1872 Mines recoy-
cred a Judgment against Johnson in the Su-
pelior Court. On the last day Of March, 1873,
Mines, finding johnson in the employ OF G. Il
Messrs. Pyle responded to all they then
owed Johnson The next day G. & J.
Pyle made All agreement with johnson
70 henrefortb prepay him his wages,
johnson refusing to remain on any other
terms. Shortly after this agreement Mines had
another attachment issued and G. J. Pyle re-
sponded that they had mo goods Of Richaad
Johnson's The plaintiff sought to impeach the
ira nsacton with fraud and sought to make G. d
j. Pyle repay all the money they had peid john
son under the agreement. The defence con-
tended that fraud must be proved by the plain
tiff and not presumed, and that G. l. ]. Pyle's
agreement was valid one. The Court 30 held
and aJury found for the defendant,
The next case tried was that Of James Brown
Us Pnsey x Rice. Action on the case L. g.
Bradford Jr., for plaintiff BENZ Nelis for de-
fendent. This is an action brought to recover
n hall ntri,, 70, ,cin
tiff by the defendants last winter and also dam
ages for alleged injuries On trial.
Judge Wootten, just before adjournment an
nounced that on tomorrow (Tuesdsy) evening,
after q O'clock the liquor licences, would be ta-
ken up.
Court opened at the usual hour, Judges Woot-
Ten & Houston on the bench. The examination
Of witnesses for the plaintiff in the case OF
James Brown, Us. Pussy & Rice, was continued
until II o'clock. Mr. Nields, for the defence,
stated his case substantially as follows:
The defendants admit tie contract made be-
tween them and Brown for the hire of the en-
slne during the winter season att pric, Of S75,
They were to use it AID return il III ordinary
good condition, allowing ail reasonable wear.
The defendants also claim that when it was
Tiled It was in very bad condition; that only go
pounds OF steam were used at any time, AMI
aud that 1t was necessary for repairs to be done
10 the engine before Oh y could use it, and that
they returned it in rs good condition as when
bhey took it into their possession save the nee
essary wear.
After calling several Witnesses to sustain these
facts the defeuce rested their case
After brief review of the facts by Mr.. Brad
ford for the plantiif Nj. Niolds asked the Cont
10 charge the jury on the following points
!. Any damage Detailing u cilattle while IN
the hands of baiee, without his misconduct,
md while the chattle was employed in the use
Tor which 1t was bailed, must be sustained by
lie bailer ; that II the engine in question was
hired by Pnsey Rice at Coatesville, and in
OF that work without negligence or
Careless treatment by them became damaged,
the defendants arc not answerable for damages.
z. When-the loss or damage ia shown, the
proof OF negligence Or want Of due care, is
Thrown upon the bailer and The baiiee is not
bound to prove ailrmatively that he used rea-
sonabe care.
3. That 1t WAS the duty Of the plaintiff to keep
the engine in suitable order aid repair for the
purposes of the baIlment.
Upon this last proposition the Court refused
to charge, holding that 1t was fact for the jury
After citing numerous authorities to sustain the
above points, Mr.. Nields addressed the Jury at
some length upon the Testimony, contending that
that no Negligence had been proven and that the
defendants IN this suit could not be. held LIABLE
After Mr. Nields concluded his argument, Brad
ioiu Tepleu, going over the eNluence III uetAl!,
arguing thas gross negligence on the part of the
defendants hal been proven, and that they were
liable for any injury done the engine whilst in
their possession. He cited authorities showing
the amount of cash from the bailee for hire due
the property bailed. Mr. Bradford concluded by
saying that he thought this al eminently proper
cas- to receive verdict for the plalirif, and
that he felt confident that the jury would render
a verdict FOR $500, the amount OF damages
claimed.
After brief charge by the Court the jury
retired to their rooms.
The next case called was the remaining Grim
nal case of State Us James Jackson and Edward
Bidlle, indicted for the larceny Of 80 ms Of
Buckwheat -four from Irael L. Herman. They
were found guilty and sentenced each to pay
200 restitution money, costs Of prosecution,
On Saturday next to receive 20 lashes, six
months imprisonment and to wear n convict's
jacket elk months after their discharge from
jail.
The neSt case taken up was Benz. Cook, rs.
George Mackey. This was called merely to as
certain amount Of damages and the same jury
rendered judgment for $50 the amount
claimed.
At o'clock the court commenced action upon
.he application for liquor licenses, full report
IF these granted and refused will appear to-
morrow. A. II.