The daily gazette., 1878-05-20
Our County Court.
LAST DAY PRoCEEDINGs-sEvERALIN IN
TERESTING CASES-AN APPIJ-
CATION FOR DOVER.

NEW CASTLE, May Is, 1878.
The proceedings following those pub-
lished in Saturdays late edition are as
follows:
The time from IL o'clock up till 2 was
taken up by argument before the Court.
between the Messrs. Bates on the one side
and Messrs. Harrington and Higgins on
the other. The points around which the
respective speakers remarks seem to re-
volve were difficult to comprehend.
The case from which sprang the diff
culties that caused the argument is as far
as we could understand somewhat as fol-
lows:
When the Clayton House was first
built the projectors, the National Bank
and Artisans Savings Fund, in order to
lind support in the enterprise secured the
cooperation OF IL, ). McComb, and other
monied men, of Wilmington, to advance
$1,000 per year, with this agreement that
no intoxicating liquors should be sold
within the building when completed.
Time elapsed, the building was finished
and everything ran smoothly for two wears
after the completion of the building. The
third year following, Mr.. McComb failed
to advance his $1,000 as per agreement,
and upon the matter being looked into
MIR. McComb gave as his reason for the
Withholding of the stated amount, that
the agreement had been broken and that
intoxicating liquors We're being sold with.
in the building.
The First National Bank and the Arti
sans Savings Fund then took action tc
bring the gentleman up to his agreement
Messrs. Harrington and Higgins repre-
sented the above corporations and
Messrs. Bates appeared for H. S. Nc
Comb.
AT Up. m. court took recess.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Doughtery will case, which came
up before their honors yesterday, received
an issue to the next term,of Court, so that
the matter in contest could be tried by
jury, The question to be decided i.
whether the testator was of sound mind
and not devoid of legal capacity to pro
vide for the distribution, of his property
In the case of Edward J. Haughey who
was confined by the Sheriff for non-pay
ment of fines imposed for violation O
liquor law, the ruleto show cause VIII,
| writ of hdbedS corpus should not b,
granted was heard. In the absence O
Mr.. Turner Mr.. Holcomb called tn
| attention of the court to the matter, TIL,
writ was refused; but directions were af
| terward given to release Mr.. Haughe,
| and man named WhitlOck who is i'm
prisoned for the same offence, at the ex
piration of three months from this date.
The application ofJoshua Maris, Esq.
counsel for Martha Brooks in the case @
Brooks VS.. McIntire, for a new trial wa
heard, and the request was granted. TIL,
| case will be heard at next term.
Mr.. Higgins called the attention of tn
| court to an action of dover. 1t wa
brought by Martha Grant, as widow @
Charles Grant, against jackson d Shar
Co., for her dover in what was know
formerly as Grants shipyard, now know
as portion ofthe property of the Jack
son x jackson Co.
| They took title under the mortgag
| given by Grants wife to Susan Stafford
In the suit on the mortgage, Mrs. Gran
was not made party, after the mortgag
was made Mr.. Grants wife made dee,
TO Susan Stafford; and jackson & Sharl
Co., now set up as defense against Mrs
Grants claim for dover this deed of her
| TO Susan Stafford.
llt uCiildiiudilL 4uIS. tTdllt, ut1luTTtt
to the plea setting up this deed on tin
ground that jackson & Sharp Co. didn'
| take their title under Susan Stafford; tina
she was a stranger as far as they were con
cerned; that this deed to Stafford canno
inure to their advantage. The court re
served their decision. Harrington an,
Hoffecker represent jackson X Sharp Co.
in the case.
Other motions were made upon trivia
affairs and decisions given by the eour
thereupon. The most important decision
was upon the practice of the different jus
tices of the peace who persist in sending
cases to court where husbands are brough
up for neglect of their wives. The cour-
went to show that this was useless, as
case of desertion on the part of husband
of his wife has to have the Trustees of tn,
Poor as party thereto.
In an action on book account, Mr.
Nields applied to the court to disallowth,
costs the case as the plaintiff had onl,
received trial before referees, a sum les
than fifty dollars. Mr.. Cummins resisted
/ becausethe claim of his client was for
sum much more than 500, and til,
amount claimed was the test of the par
ty's right to costs on recovery.
The Judge decided otherwise and saiC
that if claim was cognizable before ;
justice and the plaintiff should claim sew
eral hundred dollars over, unless he re.
covered beyond the statuatory amour
the costs would be disalloWed.