The daily gazette., 1879-05-22

DAMAGE SUIT, ETC.
Especially reported for the GAzETTE
New CASTLE, MAY 21.-When the
ID mby case was concluded to-day, civil
business was taken up, the first case be-
ing that of Stott g. Wright Us. Allen f.
Cunningham. The parties are from
Newark. This was an action on two
prOmis 'ory notes of $50 each, dated
October %, 1877. at six and three months
respectively. The defence alleged usury
claiming that these notes had been given
to renew two other notes, amounting 10
500 aud that at the time of the renewal
the defendant gave his check for the un-
paid Interest on the old notes, and inter-
ct In advance on the new ones thus
making an interest of IL per cent. Lore
for plaintiffs and Vailandinham tor de-
fendaut.
The case was given to the jury at 12:45
O'Clock the Court charging them that this
was a question of fact, and if they were
satisfied usury had been practiced they
should render verdict In favor Of the
defendant.
Court then took q recess until three o.
clock
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Court reassembled at 3 O'Clock.
Immediately after the opening the
Jury IN the case of Stott x Wright ys.
A lien Cunningham, came into Court
with verdict in favor of the descendant.
In relation to the cases Of William Il.
Croa,dale Us. WIN. Bright and Others,
Mr.. Bright testified that material wit
ness for the defence, was absent from
the State. The cases were thereupon
laid over un'il the next term.
Mr.. Bird for the plaintiff, asked the
Court for perenptory order for the
trial of these cases at the next term,
which was granted.
The next case was that of James 7.
Richardson, Us. Victor Dehap. This
was an action for the recovery of dam
ages on account of the destruction of a
carriage owned by the plaintiff. while in
the possession of The defendant. Amount
med, $40. H. r. Pennington, Esq,
for plaintif II and WIN. G. Whiteley ESD,
for defendant.
The plaintiff fl alleged that the carriage
was left in Mr.. Dehau's charge, for few
days, the latter promising to see that
nothing disturbed it; but that the next
morning the vehicle was found to be
completely broken up. D-han lived in
Wilmington, at Front and Van Buren,
streets, and Richardson in Christiana
Hid. The carriage was left on Van Buren,
street, alongside of Dehan's fence. The
defence further alleged that Dehan ex-
planned the condition of the carriage by
statiig that his boys used 1t for drive,
and the horse ran away, smashing the
vehicle.
Mr.. Whiteley asked the witness, Geo.
Richardson, a son of the plaintiff, from
whom Mr.. Dehan obtained the horse
that ran away.
Witness. From my father.
Counsel for the plaintiff objected TO
this question, but the Court ruled 1t In
order.
John Green, of Wilmington testified
that he repaired Mr.. Richardson's car
riage, at a COS. of 500.
Col Whiteey, for the defence, claim
that as the carriage was left nt Dehan's
place. by Richard-onis own request, here
fore Dehan WAS only cOmpslled to protect
himself against the grOs>est negligence
The carriage was left on the public street,
In violation OF the ordinances of the city,
and it was not Dehan's duty to build IA
carriage house over 1t, or hire u watch
man to see that il was not taken away.
He claimed that the case should not go
before the jury, as bailee without hire,
which tho defendant was in this case,
could only be held responsible for gross
negligence, and was not for ordinary ne
glect or common casualty.
The Court, after argument by counsel,
decided to let the case go to the jury.
The defence alleged that when the car
| rage WAS l6lb at lcuhno3 oHo pidi uui Ii
had been informed it was unlawful to
leave vehicles standing upon the streets,
but decided to run the risk of legal OBJ l.
cation. The witness, a son OF Victor De-
han testified that he took the carriage
out, without his fathers consent OF
kno " ledge and that the horse ran away
: and broke the carriage.
The defence also endeavored to prov 9
that the carriage was comparatively
| Il h,yr niv,ny a w N a 1aI
Charles Specht, who testified that he
saw the cart;ag, standing on Dehan's
pavement, and offered HIM $3.50 for IL
Witness said he did not consider II
worth IN ore than SO at the furthest.
The Court charged that the case turn
ell very much UPON ! proof The law
, is that when one leaves property with
another, Without pay, the blilee Is only
responsible for gross negligence. IL thu
defendant agreed to see that nobody
t disturbed the carriage, and 1T was left II
. his charge in accordance with this agree
. ment, he would be liable for any negli
( gence that could be considered al al
: gross. If the jury believed that Dehai
: agreed to see that nobody disturbed thu
;. carriage, it was his duty to see that M
one did so, by the exercise Of ordinar.
care. And If the son ofDehan put tn,
horse 10 the carriage, on account of tn
absence of proper care, aud the damag
. was occasio oned by this action, then H.
IL is respon>lble. The Court further state'
= in relation to the testimony that the Cal
riage was taken away without. Dehan'
!, knowledge, and that under the circun
II II stances of the case he was not require'
= : to watch the vehicle night and day, |
!, order to in: uro its safe keeping. Th
=, Court concluded by stating that The jur
II must decide by reviewing the testimony
:, which was very conflicting, and detel
i mining which side of the case 1t affected
~ ~ The Jury retired a. LAO o'clock.
- Application was m.de by Anthon
,s Higgins, Esq; for q continuance, wit
n i, leave to amend, OF the cases of GeOrg
- H. Hollis, Us. Leonard G. and Isaac "
70 Vandegrift. This is an action ON prt
u missory note, wherein the defence is a
:, alleged alteration of the note. Chas.
y Lore, Esq, counsel for the defendant
- opposed the continuance. Leave
- - amend was granted, the amended nd'
'o e to be filed on Friday, at II O'Clock.
!; The general jury was discharged unit
", !" tomorrow morning, at 10 O'Clock.
At $40 o'clock the jury in the case
!, ! James I. Richardson's. Victor Deha
VI returned with a verdict in favor uf Il
y plaintiff, 10 the amount of Sl5.
In the case of Ehza and Mary Harris
the City of Wilmington, action for d II
g a ,es to the amount of $lO, 900 for the 81
It slug up Of the foot Of Shipley streets.
IN Macallister, Esq, counsel tor the defe
q d.,nts, made appl,catio to have the tri
r p )stponed, until after the action Of ejet
i? inent which is now at issue shall
o. triad for the reason that one Of the d