The daily gazette., 1879-12-02
FIRST EDITION
Our County Courts.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EJKCTMENT
sUIT-THE EVERLASTING CASE FAR
FROM THE FINisH-THE DC0AN CASE
AGAIN POSTPONED.
Specially reported for the Gazette.
NEW CASTLE, Dec. 1.-The Whole of
to-day was taken up with the Ejsctment
su t, ostensibly brtween the fictitious
J I'm Doe and Richarc Roe, but really
between the Delaware Wes ern Railroad
Company and John A. Harris. The
ease. dull enough all forenoon, assumed
u non-inte resting phase just before the
noon adjournment, when Mr.. Jummins
opened for the defense and claimed
nun suit.
TIE gist of Mr.. Cummins' plea for
Eon-suit is to the following effect:
The reason Eon-suit Is asked for Is
not because the defendants feel sati- fled
that they could not secure verdict of
.snot guilty," were the case to be c,n-
cIuded, but because the plaintiff, having
clused their case, have not established
| any points. In ej ctment cases the
plaintiff Is bound To coIiclusively prove
his title to the laud; the defendant is not
bound 10 show that he Is the legitimate
| owner. Briefly stated, the grounds on
winch the application is mad, are as
follows: Fint-The testimony and proof
does not prove any territorial property
| belonging TO the plaintiffs ,on which they
could ak for a verdict ia. Orable to them.
| Second-The testimony and pioof does
not show he course or direction OF the
east side size Vests dock, or even tile
docks position, when IL is the western
boundary of the land in dispute, and the
dock Oh the plot has not even been shown
to have been Vests dock. Third-The
testimony aud proof does not prove pos
session or title to any of tie property de-
| Tended.
| MIR. Bates argued at length in opposi-
tiou t, the non-suit, aud, at the conclu-
sion of his remarks, the Court refused to
grant MIR. Cuinmins' application.
Court then took recess until three
o'clock, reassembling at that hour.
Up n application Of Mr. Bird the case
OF Samuel Cammill VS.. William Daniels
was continued; the case Of Anthony Key
bold VS.. George A. Parker aud others,
and of Ephrsim Wilson VS.. mary Jane
irving, were also continued.
The Court stated that, after consi iera-
tion, IT. had concluded to postpone the
case Of S ATE VS.. Hugh Duean until next
Monday. Iu accordance with this the
Jurors and witnesses were discharged till
that day.
The ejectment suit was resumed, and
Mr.. Cummins prefaced the calling ol
witnesses tor the defense by putting In
evidence the following documents, TO
show the title TO the land OWED by The
defendants:
Deed from John A. Harris ard wife to
Eliza and Mary Harris, Nov. 10, 1871
deed from John Harris 10 John A. Har-
ris; March IL, 1872; d ed from John A.
Har. is and wife to Eliza and Mary Har-
ris, Nov. 8, 1876; deed T ON Philil
p unkett TO jim A. Harris, July ii
1865; deed from William Strmple and
wife To Philip Plunkett, April II, 1855
deed from James Simpson aud wife II
Wm. Strimple, March 20. 1e40; deee
from Samuel Taylor 10 Jam Simpson
March 6, 1925; deed from John larri
and wife to James Simpson, December
Il, 1890.
Charles Moore was the first witness
for the detensp. He testified that h'
knew the land from 1912 to 1928; Wes,'
: dock formerly ian up l75 feet from tht
water front, and lie had fished in IL oil
Water str. ct, the dock went up the eas
side of Shipley street, and overtiowed al
the land In dispute by high tides; tL'
/ only fast land was 80 feet on Watt
street and 100 feet ON Shipley street
filling up commenced about 1872; TN
marine railway dock, which is not West
dock, and which is the dock mentione'
d i. the plot, was built 25 years ago; th
D line of the fence is now where west
: dock formerly was, and would be nea
the centre of the dock. (The east line c
Vests dock was the dividing line be
!. tween the two properties.-Reporter')
A Euoch Monre's testimony corrobrate'
that of Charles Moore. He was positi.
that the present dock was not west
e dock, ami then went on with greaI cal
S to describe Vests dock.
Couit adjourned at 9 o'clock.