The daily gazette., 1877-05-24

nOOert Ii. Barr q 20. VS.. Burk &
Mendinhall.
Marcellus Mattee VS.. Mary Southgate
and j. W. Whiteman, Bailiff.
jackson Il Sharp Co. VS.. ID. W. Tay-
lor.
Charles Warner & Co. VS.. d. Woodall
u Co.
The Court then took up criminal bus
mess.
State VS.. James Robinson, negro,
charged with having committed an as
sault upon officers Jones and Cloud. The
prisoner pleaded guilty, and, having been
in Jail since last March, the Court fined
him but one dollar with costs.
State vs.. James Walls, assault and bat
terry with intent to kill Dennis Curtis.
The Court directed the jury to bring in
a verdict Of not guilty. The indictment
alleging the assault to have been made
upon one Dennis Curtis, while the evil
dence showed the mans name to be Den
mis- Curtin.
State VS.. James Walls, assault and bat
terry upon Peter Quinn. This case grew
out of the preceding one and Walls was
acquitted.
There Is another indictment pending
against Walls for an assault and battery
upon Patrick McMenamin and Walls
gave surity in $lOV to appear at the next
term.
Richard Harrington. Esq, of the Kent
county bar, made motion for a rule to
show cause why a certain warrant of at
torney and judgment together with all
proceedings had thereon should not be
M 10 1n1s
The facts are these. On the first of
February, 1877, William Mailer made
and delivered his promissory note at four
months, payable to the order of Hamil-
ton & Cummins, for the sum of $467 so.
This note was Tor the express accommo-
dation of Hamilton & Cummins. On
the same day Hamilton negotiated loan
with VIM. Daniels amounting TO 1897,
for which loan he endorsed said note as
security to Daniels.
In March last Hamilton & Cummins
failed. After their failure, Daniels, the
holder OF the note, procured from Mailer
his bond, with warrant of attorney, for
the sum of $467.5 with interest from
June 1st, 1877, in exchange for said note;
Mailer at the time of giving his bond
having no knowledge of any usurious
contract between Hamilton and Daniels,
and believing himself legally bound to
nav the note at maturity. Judgment was
entered upon this bond, given in consid-
Grafton of said note, in New Castle coun-
ty, and certain writs of execution and at
| tachment were issued thereon, levy made
and attachment had. Mailer now prays
the court to set aside and vacate the judg-
ment and warrant of attorney and all
proceedings had Hereunder, and to order
Daniel to deliver up said bond, upon the
ground that the bond and warrant of at.
torney were given upon usurious con-
alteration, and are therefore void.
| During Mr.. Harringtons, argument the
court took recess until 3 O'Clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Court reas. embed at 3 p. IN.
Richard Harrington, Esq, resumed his
argument in Mailer Us. Daniel. The
Conrt after hearing him at length re.
marked that this application was the
first that had been made to them OF the
kind. The decisions in usuary cases had
been carried to the utmost verge and
they were not disposed to carry 1t one
inch further.
They granted Mr.. Harrington, an en-
larpement of his rule until next term VIII
process to summon witnesses TO sno"
the court the nature OF the paper lo'
which this bond and warrant was SUI
stituted. .o,.o.
The following inquisitions were taker
at the bar. co =,
John wilkinson assignee OF George II
Townsend ps. Hugh NJ. Haughey's ad
ministrator $414O. s,co re
T. q. Salter, Us. j. p. Schmidt, Sl62.56
Mrs. T. Phillips us. Evan L. Evan,
wife and tt. Motion to take money ou
of court to be applied to the payment o
/, purchase money mortgages
The petition of Levisa Anna Eatol
Q nrauin1 that her counsel fees be taxed a.
r COSTS AGAINST her husband in the divorc'
sn;t of Eaton Us. Eaton was denied.
bridget Connor, who was placed II
;ail for selling liquor without license
> was discharged. .,,
ar Fnlton. inuuisition at bar $l16.42 VI
motion of Mr.. Fulton, the lnquisiuol
was upset for defective proof
: State use of VIM. ii. Gerdon, Vt
Columbus Watkins. lnqmsiuoh at U"
$96606. i'm. =, Cav,
ne; Sntton's property, in st. Georges nc
was made by George Gray, Esq; IN
mot;on was based on inadequacy OF prlc
and improper advertisement. 1t appear
q % that twp Ieyaris had been issued agalnf
the hs' properly and the Sheriff had a,er;'s
& the the PROPERTY for sale on two different day
The court set the sale asiue'
D. About elo the court sent for the Jury
q tho osse of taylor vs. Jackson. In respons
- ~ ~. Communication from them that the
5, could not agree. the Court asked snei ini
why fthey could not make up .n .ne,r m'au az
n to some conclusion and tthe foreman nardi, Sn
swered that some wished ,Ssts 70 sS tSongbt tn,
" tSa M nia,ntiff should recover the DIVIDEND
o, nlscpS ,Hs p to his credit on the jackson
'nrte Tbe Court repeated It's instructions ,s,C
,ha. no;nt to them when they agreed upe
nss verdict for defendant without leaving ing; a
a. Sar The Jury when it came down stos !
re for defendant, for plaintiff and one ~ ont
1e cided. Court then adjourned until !"