The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1878-12-21
A HORSE TRADE AND HOW IT ENDED.

One OF the most extraordinary cases that
Court of this county was tried this week
and occupied the Court from "Wednesday
noon to Friday at +. NJ, when it was given
TO the jury, which had not rendered 4 YER
diet when We went TO press.
The facts. as near As we have been able
TO ascertain them, are as follows: On the
lglh of April, 1877, Wilbur Januey and
William J. Smith Ga son of him known as
Diamond Jim - traded horses, or, rather
We should say, Janney traded horse and
Smith a black mare, which was heavy with
foal, and did foal, the night after the trade
was made. The trade was consummatsd
on the premises OF William J. Smith: where.
upon Wilbur Janney took the said mare to
the premises of J. y. Jsnney, his brother,
aud she, for the reason before stated, being
unfit to work, procured horse belonging
to George W. Janney, who is the father of
Wilbur and John y. Janney, and which J.
y Janney had borrowed from him, leav-
ing the black mare IN possession of his
brother. IL is proper to state that G.. W.
Janney and his son, J y. Janney, rented
the premises occupied by the latter. Four
days after this, viz, on the 23rd of April,
Wilbur Janney traded the black mare which,
as before stated, had foaled in the mean
time, to his father for the horse that he had
borrowed from J. y. Janney and 500. On
h, nt.rht nt hs nd lar Of
Smith, who had "squealed, as gentlemen
of the turf would say, took the horse he
had received from Wilbur Janney to the
premises Of j. y. Janney and put it in his
oats field, and took the black marc and
colt, which were now the property of G.
W. Janney, away with him. The next
morning, J. y. Januey discovered the horse
in the oats field: whereupon he mounted it
and took it back to the premises of VIM.
J. Smith and left it there, and found the
colt in question in Mr.. Smiths stable. He
thon notified his father of the state of the
case. and the two gentlemen started tn
hunt the missing black mare, and found
her in team at Marley Mill. This team
appeared to be in the joint possession of
VIM. J. Smith and his father, Jas. Smith
the latter of whom, as the sequel will show
became intimately connected with the case.
g. w. Januey thereupon demanded that
VIM. J. Smith should return the said black
mare and colt TO him, which he promised to
do as Januey says, but Smith denies later
in the day, after his Smith S return 10 his
home, with which Mr.. Janney was satisfied,
and repaired 10 Smiths residence at the
ascertainsd that Mr.. Smith had taken the
mare and colt t. some place in Chester
county, Pa. Mr.. Janney subsequently ascer-
tanned their precise location, and after OBJ
tanning a writ of replevin, in order tn get
possession of them, in company with the
proper officer, repaired to the place where
they had been, but did not find them there
lie subsequently learned that Smith had
removed them TO near New Hastle, Della,
ware, where they remained for some time
but were afterwards brought back to Cecil
county and put in the stable of Jas. Smith
and there locked up by William J. Smith
whereupon G. w. Janney obtained another
writ of replevin: but the officer, in whose
hands it was placed, owing to the strict
surveillance of the Smiths, was unable to
serve it without breaking open the stable,
which the law did not permit him to do
This writ was issued on the 10Th of June
1877, aud after vainly trying to execute it
in the meantime, Mr.. Janney instituted an
action of trover for the recovery of the
value Of the mare in question from James
Smith at the following September term of
| court.
1t is proper that we should state that the
horse that J. y. Jauney left at William ].
| Smiths was turned loose upon the road,
and was subsequently, taken up by ;. II.
/ Rogers and sold estray for the sum
Of So, Of which sum about s. reached the
I county treasury.
/ Though this case originated in horse
trade, the facts elected upon the trial in
volyed some Of the incest aud most subtle
| points in the law and difficult questions Of
fact. The questions Of law being whether
there was conversion by James Smith to
/ his own of said mare and colt. The
/ question of fact was, who had possession of
the property, James Smith or William J.
Smith? The defendant contended that
James could not csHrert what he had not
possession Of; and that, as the property
was IN James Smiths stable with his per
mission, William earring the key and re
tanning control. left the property in Viii
liams possession.
! The case was we'll conducted and ably