The daily gazette., 1879-05-30
THE " COUNTY COURTS.
DRAWING NEAR THE END OF
.ys..p.i 4.t. THE TERM.
BALANCE OF YESTERDAYS PRO-
'.I rf7iAi7 CEEDINGS.

..I ''f'D4'' CEEDINGS.
-.iD. I..l .n....t ---O-- DID,.
A VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT
IN DERRINGER VS.. DERRINGER--
AN EJECTMENT CAsE-THE DOUGH-
ERTY WILL CASE DEcIDED.-THE
HoL1Is-vANDEGRIFT CASE STILL
OCT. .Is. .-uui iYi5i 4t...u ..- t
Specially reported for the GAzlrrE.l
a,. New CASTLE, May 30, 1879. b
Mr.. Rodney applied for q non-suit,
The plaintiffs not being able to decide at
once whether accepting a non-suit, or
demanding verdict from the jury for
the defendants, would place their case in
the best attitude for carrying IL to the
Court Of Errors aud Appeals. There the
case will 60, whether a non-suit Or an
adverse jury verdict is accepted by the
plaintiffs. 4, .5r4... s.c.. ., ,'..,0
In order, to give plaintiffs counsel time
to consider this point, the Court dis
charged the jury until 8 o'clock. .'-
The Court remained in continuous
session, to-day, the jury in the case of
George ii. Hollis us. Isaac W. Vande-
grit being out, though the usual noon
recess was taken. f.t W -Yia
At one o'clock, Elizabeth Stewart, of
Wilmington, against whom there were
six indictments for selling liquor without
a Ilicehse, was brought into Court and
pleaded "guilty" to three cases, nolle
pros. having been entered in the others.
She was sentenced to pay fine of $50
and costs in each case, and not having
any money will be obliged to languish
in Jail until next September. -, 49,.
In the case of the Derringer admins
traitors, the counsel for the plaintiffs ac-
c.pted jury verdict in favor of the de-
tendant, deeming it better for their case
than taking a hon-suit. The case will
be taken in the Court of Errors and APP
peals.
A jury was drawn to try the ejectment
case case of John Doe, lessee of Robert
Roberts, os. Richard Roe, casual ejector,
and James Kelly, tenant in possession.
There being alrs a ly two juries drawn,
the panel was exhausted, and the jury
had to be completed with talasmen. The
Couit room was almost empty at the
time, and the Sheriff was obliged to
draw in couple of talasmen from the
street. VIM. G. Spruance, Esq, was
counsel for the plaintiff in this case, and
Victor DUPONT, Esq, for the defendant,
but tile latter was not present. Practic-
ally, this case is simply that Of Robert
Roberts us. James Kelley, but the law
still holds to the ancient forms and
usages, and bringsJ Ohm Doe and Rich
ard Roe face to face in all ejectment
suits.
The facts of case are hatWm. Morrow of
Wilmington, several wears ago owned a
square of Ian" b the west side OF
Adams street, b .enSixth and Seventh
which he divid p and sold in build
! ing lots. Now it SO happened that
in disposing of these lots, Mr..
Morrow commenced the sale at Seventh
street, and sold down towards Sixth, but
subsequently,, he changed the direction
of the sale and made fresh start at
Sixth street, proceeding up towards Sew
enth. AS a. natural consequence, the last
lot sold Tapped over to distance of 81
inches, on the one sold Just previous to
Starting the sale at Sixth street, and the
man who purchased the last lot, Mr.. Neil
Gibbons, erected thereon house which
is now tenanted by James Kelly, who is
represented by Richard Roe, the defen-
dant IN this suit. The owner of the lot
thus intruded upon is Robert Roberts,
who is the plaint Fl in this suit in the per-
son of John Doe. His lot is not built
upon.fl 'Ni W"tii 'I' '' ~
Mr.. Spruance placed in evidence thu
deeds Of the property in question, and
proved by the testimony Of Seymour P.
Thomas, assistant engineer, that the line
of the plaintiffs property extended 81
inches over the property Of the aefen-
dant. 80 t'--liio u r. -ls '-'e -','
Fhe court charged that as the plaintiff
had proved his claim, and the defendant
made no defence, the jury should render
a verdict that the defendant was guilty
of the trespass and ejectmeht In the
declaration mentioned" This verdict
was rendered by the jury without leaving
the box. t sG7if .'
In the matter of the Dcugherty will
case, which was on trial last session, and
resulted In disagreement of the jury,
and has since been heard before the Reg
lister, Judge Wootten delivered the
opinion of the Court. '''"
This was the case wherein the widow
and children of George Dougherty, late
of Brandywine Hundred, contested his
will, by which almost his entire estate
W.
WMteley, Esq, was counsel for the con-
testants, and Chas B. Lore, Esq, for the
will. j. Has ~ y 'f9 '
Judge Wootten said he had carefully
examined the testimony taken before the
Register. The will, be said, seemed to
have been drawn'by Robert z. Fraim fif-
teen months before 1t was executed, and
the only instructions Fraim received as
| to its provisions were from Dougherty' 8
son, the principal devisee. The old man
evidently never saw the will until it was
brought to him for his signature, while
he was In dying condition. The court
was unanimously of the opinion that the
evidence was not sufficient to Justify the
Register in setting up the will, and es.
tablishing it as the last will and tesla
ment of George Dougherty. Therefore
the Registers order would be reversed.
| Chief Justice Comegys said 1t would
be extremely dangerous to allow will
made under such circumstances which
cut out all the rest of the family.
i A decree in accordance with this order
will be prepared by Mr.. Whiteley, aHt
| will be confirmed by the Court.
1 At $40 O'Clock, the jury in the case O
George H. Hollis VS.. Isaac W. Vande
grift after having been out seven hour
came into court, and announced that the,
could not agree upon verdict.
The court ordered them to return t,
their chamber and try again. ..+ e
No further business was transacted
though Court still continued in session
the jury being out. f'', II
r. The opDara1 iu,.v, ovcav,tiv,o, tI,ocn nv,