Wilmington daily commercial., 1875-05-28
------=------
New Castle County Courts.
Renorted .for "a comnLerciaI. :.

NEW CASTLE, May 27.
Court openeI this morning, at 10 o'clock
Judges dilpin, Wooton md Houston on the
bench.
After calling the jury list the case Of Holiater
Va. Armstrong was continued, and the whole
morning session was occupied with the araI-
mcnts of Messrs. Gray and Spruance
At 2 30 p. M, argument being concluded, tho
court took recess until half past three o'clock
Upon the reassembling of the court Chief
Justice Gilpin charged the jury substantially as
follows He congratulated the jury that this
case was so near at an end he consdeied this
as a case especially for d jury to decide some
questions Of law have been raised and We have
been requested to charge yQu concerning tho
effect of a certain paper, bu We do not deem it
necessary. This case is to he decided by tho
facts submitted to you. The case hss been
eaborately sifted By the learned counsel oil both
sides and discussed i'll your hearing and you VIII
not be long in arriving at a verdict.
Yet it il proper that we should show You the
simple question which You are to decide and tho
rules of law which apply to it. Under the plead
ings there are several issues raised The dofen-
dantH have pleaded i'll the ard instance that the
property was in stranger at the time of tho
seizure, and not in George $. Hollister. Upon
that plea they took issue and George s. Hollis
ter assumed the responsibility OF proving that 1t
was his property at that time. After the plain
tiff Il testimony was in and printd JdGie case
was made out, the defense sought to controvert
| and disproye that this property was in Hollis
| ter's possession by alleging frand. When fraud
| is alleged it is incumbent on the party alleging
| it to make it out by satisfactory evidence.
This case in itself il somewhat peculiar. You
are to consider whether this was u fair traueac-
ton. The question of good faith is to be looked
| into and whether the law has been complied
with Fraud vltiates all contracts. Where il
| enters into contract the contract il Iulty
| This is a universal maxim of the law. In this
| case great deal has been said of Deal Il Horn
er, and of their conduct in this transaction, anC
| with regard to their fairness. Whatever may
| have been tho fraudulent actions of Deal a
| Horner il George s. Hollister was not partici
pant in that fraud he is not to be held responsi-
| bic fer it. He il responsible, however, for hii
| own actions.
| The Chief Justice here read the statute relat
| ing to sales of personal property, providing tina
| there shall be valuable consideration and
| transfer Of the possession.
| The Chief Justice proceeded to review IL,
| evidence relating TO HOLSTERS possession ant
| cautioned the jury to look at tho bona 1l'ics o
the case. You must look at the circumstances
| Fraud assumes every conceivable shape. IL al
| ways endeavors to hide its tracks. You arc t.
| carefully scrutnize, and if You believe til,
transaction between Deal and Horner was fai
and honest one, you should give your veIdic
| for the plaintiff with nominal damages but il
you find this transaction tinted with fraud yol
| should render a verdict for the defendant, witt
damages, which you will gather from the inven
tory in your hands. In conclution, the Che
Justice stated the evidence against the good re
pute of John W. Gray was for the Jurys soil
| determination.
The Jury then retired aud are still out.
The next case called was that of George W.
Ingram VI. Thomas Massey; action for service,
rendered as agent in negotiating sale of IA farm
for defendant. Geo G. Gray, ESD appeared
for the plaintiff, and g. b. L j. II. Rodney, ESD
| for defendant.
Jury out.
The next case called was Howard Pusey, d. b
a.. vs.. John Kirkman, p. b. T.; appeal. Har
rngton, for appellant; Bird, for respondent.
This was All appeal from Jus'ice of tn