Daily Republican., 1879-08-22

bhu OIL CoDtps
Patrick Magarity vs.. Mayor and Coun
Gil of Wilmington, l63, May Term, 1878
This was an action to recover dam
ages for the flooding Of the plaintiff
property, caused by raising the beds o
the adjoining streets, and the allegee
defective construction of the Monroe
street sewer. The case was tried at tht
last term of court and resulted in 8
verdict for the city. As the case is O.
great Importance and value to the city,
would suggest the propriety Of having
it carefully compiled and printed, to
gether with ths charge OF the court.
take this occasion 10 acknowledge the
valuable services of E. G. Bradford, Jr.
ESQ.,, who assisted me in the trial OF the
case.
Anton Hence VS.. the Mayor and Coun-
Gil Of Wilmington. ~
This case was an action Of damages
to the plaintiff, caused by stepping in
to hole between gutter plates. This
case was one Of clear neglect on the
part of the city's employees, and was
settled by the payment by the city OF
81, 500, which sum included costs, n a
! Albert D. vandevsr, a. b.la., the M.
C. of Wilmington. $50 MI. 1878, ap-
peal from tn Mayor. tBlOU a0g .
This case was an appeal from the
judgment of sx-Mayor Whitsley upon
charge Of Violating the city ordinance
prohibiting the manufacture or sale OF
oils of certain fire test. Judgment
was rendered against Mr.. Vandever for
$50 and costs, at the last term of cour..
The following cases are pending in
the Superior Court. aary .y
Elijah and Mary Harris VS.. the May
or and Council of Wilmington-22l, NJ.
7, 1878. Case.
Every preparation was made for the
trial of the case at the last term, but
the court adjourned before the case
could be reached in the order fixed tor
it by the court. 1t will in all proba-
bility be tried at the ensuing term OF
court.
James Megary. D. B. A.-342, No
vember term, 1878, appeal.
This is an appeal from Judgment
rendered against the appellant for viola
ton of city ordinance prohibiting the
keeping Of disorderly house. lexpect
to dispose of it at the next term OF
court.
VIM. A. Murphy, ct. al. VS.. the May
or and Council of Wilmington.
The Court of Errors and Appeals.
Appeal.
The case was argued before the
Chancellor at the last September term,
at the following May term the Chancel-
lor rendered his decision in favor of
the city. The plaintiff prayed an ap-
peal, and the case is now pending in
the Court OF Errors and Appeals
As the rules of that Court require the
briefs of counsel to be printed and cop
les furnished each member OF the court
and the opposing counsel ! asked that
aylthorityOe given me for that purpose.
1t is expected that arguments upon the
appeal will bs had at the January term
OF court. Hu.o" r"' .l
James Bennett vs.. Mayor and Coun',
Gil Of Wilmington.
In chancery. Injunction.
This is a bill filed In ohaacery for an
INJUNCTION to restrain the city from col
lecting an assessment for curbing and
paving in front of Mr.. Bennett's prop
erty on New Castle avenue. A motion
was made on behalf Of the city to dis
miss the bill as the bill was too gen.
eral in its form, and the court had not
jurisdiction. Argument upon the
motion was heard by the Chancellor at
Dover in March last. The Chancellor
has delivered no formal opinion, but
has writton to me that he will not dis
solve the injunction until the final
hearing, but the complainant is re-
ouired to amend his bill, This has not
yet been done, but presume the case
will bs at issue at the next term.
Arthur H. Grimshaw, ct al, security
of Joseph l.. Killgore vs.. Mayor and
Council Of Wilmington.
The case in the charge OF Mr.. Cum
Minis, my predecessor, and has not
yet been disposal Of. The appeal from
the decision of the Chancellor has been
docketed in the Court of Errors and
Appeals. The question of the validity
of the judgement entered upon the bond
of Dec. 81, 1870, has been argued b.
fore L. e. Bradford, Jr., Esq, who was
chosen as an arbitrator. am inform
ed that the decision, when made, will
dispose of the whole case.
submit herewith copies OF the sew
eral acts of the General Assembly, pas
sed at its last session, etfecting the in
terests of the city, as printed in the
session laws. As these acts were be-
fore the Council and receive it's appro-
val it unnecessary to con- ment upon
their Importance.
The act entitled al act to prohibit
the City Council Of Wilmington pass
ing ordinances to prohibit farmers sell,
ing their products in said city, being
an act which, il it were operative,
would materially alter the charter of
the city, and restrict its general powers
to regulate markets, not appearing to
have been passed by two-thirds vote
of each branch OF the Legislature, is in
my Judgment, unconstitutional, and
therefore imperative.
The ordinances Of the city regulating
the markets were passed when the
markets were held in the old market
houses on Second, Fourth and Twelfth
streets. The Mayor has great difficulty
in regard to the markets, rs the ordi-
nances now stand, and respectfully
sugpest that they be SO altered IS to
Us,.g ~.ysH,