The daily gazette., 1876-12-07
New CASTLE. Dee. &. 1s7t


There were among the goods seized upon
chair and desk which Knowles claims
as his together with the yarns sent to be
manufactured. The court instructed the
jury that If they found the goods to be
knowles then they must render averdict
for KNOWLES to nominal damages and q
verdict for the defendant in the amount
which the chair and desk were proved to
be worth) The jury took the case at
II 40 a. nj.
The jury are still out. They disagree
and wish to be discharged but the Court
has refused. ..-.-.--.....-.
The Court ruled that II the defendant
failed to establish his claim to all the
property costs went against him.
Case of Geo. II. Elkinton, Joshua At
kinson W.. VIM. s. Hayes and Charles
Gallagher. Judgment for defendant for
costs.
Abraham Z. Shannon vs.. Sarah A.
Hugg. Referred to referees to be named
by the Prothonotary.
In Gilbert VS.. Mote, application by
Judgment creditor for rule to show cause
why Sheriff sale should not be set aside
argument was had by counsel and court
decided against granting the rule on the
ground that a Judgment creditor was not
entitled to complain.
Court adjourned until p. M
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Court reassembled at p. m.
The first case called for trial was Annie
NJ Calvert VS.. James Sutton.
Higgins for plaintiff and Lore for de-
fendant. The declaration is in four counts
alleging promise to marry on request,
within reasonable time ,gencrallya on
April %, 1875.
The first witness called was Mrs. Cal
vart who testified substantially that she
was the mother of the plaintiff and that
she lived now at 4l6 King street, that she
had lived in Wilmington for twenty odd
years, excepting one year QS72) in Phila-
where her husband had died. She knew
Sutton, the defendant, before she moved
to Philadelphia. She resided in East
Second street opposite the market house.
Sutton had visited her house since 1867.
In 1870 and Il he came frequently, he
would often run over in the day time
from his stall which was opposite and
visited twice a week in the evening, he
came to visit the plaintiff, in 1879 we
moved to Philadelphia and he came sew
eral times there, when we returned to
Wilmington we moved to 416 King street
where we now are. My family consists
Of my son and daughter and myself. The
witness went on to prove the intimacy of
theplaintiff with defendant and his decla-
ration that he would marry her. On one
occasion he came in and seeing her at
work at night he took the bonnet out of
her hand and told her not to ovsrwork
herself, that it would not last long, as he
would marry her and take her out of
work. The witness proved several dec
larations OF this kind ,and also, that prepa-
rations for marriage were made by the
daughter. On March 22dI1S75 witness dis
covered that plaintiff had seduced her
daughter, and instantly Sutton was sent
for. He acknowledged his guilt and
promised to repair the wrong gbymarriage.
She even set day for the ceremony,
April 26th 1874 He professed great sor-
row and asked the forgiveness of Mrs
Calvert. He said the reason why he did
not set nearer date for marriage was
that having arranged for some work to
be done at his slaughter house he could
not leave. In subsequent interview
with Mrs. Calvert he swere with his hands
uplifted that he would keep his promise.
Sutton said he would go up to Phila-
delphia, April 25th with the butchers to
buy some cattle, and would meet witness
and their daughter and go and get mar
ried privately. He begged witness not to
say anything about the matter until they
| were married. The day appointed drew
| near, a few days previous, Sutton not
coming to the house Mrs. Calvert went
| to his stall to see him and he said he
could not come up but wished the plain
ltiffto come down. Witness object, but
Sutton said that If she would come about
8 in the evening no one would observe
her, that evening it rained and Mrs. Cal
vert went herself to tell Sutton to come
up as plaintiff was unable to come out in
the rain, Sutton then told her that he was
not going to Philadelphia did not intend
to marry plaintiff. Witness hastened
home and told her daughter when she
tainted. At subsequent interview that
evening, defendant repeated that he
would not marry plaintiff, and offered
witness $165 which was rejected. june
2sth the child was born and lived three
days. Witness testified that her daugh-
ters health, had been shattered ever since
and that she was not able to get up 9
whole day at time. Formerly she was
very capable workwoman, doing tho
work of two girls, while now she was il
n state of constant illness unable to work
This was the result of the defendant
wrong solely.
The story of Ms. Calvert was straight
forward and made strong impression.
Tomorrow morning she will be subject
! to a rigid cross examination by MIR. Lore
\ Court adjourned at 6p. M. p,
IL. G. I.