Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1880-12-09

| Inspection OF it, and his brother states that
| he was with them the last day. They give
| You, IN detail, an account of the kiud of
! timber growing upon il. that il the different
| species of trees and their quality they tell
! You the estimate of the mine props that could
be cut upon 1t, the number of feet of them
and their value at the coal mines close in the
nelghhorhood the number of chestnut rails
4 that could be made from the timber there !:
the number of railroad sleepersror cross-ties
| all OF which different articles thev state,
are in demand i'll that region, 1t appears also
from them, or some of them. that there is a
raliroad station not more thar one mile and
an eighth distant from the tract They fur.
ther testify to you that there is an excavation
\ on one side of it from which iron ore has
4 been ia sei, and that several tons from & to TO-
are now lying upon TIE ground there plain to
be seen and they say that no one could have
! made thorough examination of the prem
lses without seeing It, unless the ground had
been covered (Which does not appear to have
been the case when the witnesses for the de-
| iendant made their inspectiunl with SNOW.
| And Urlah Ferree states that no one not pre-
| vlunsly acquainted with them could possibly
] nave made any proper examination OF these
| lands to ascertain their real value i'll the time
employed for that purpose by most of the
WITNESSES III that behalf, of the defendant
| (Which WAS one day last week nor in less than
| three or four days 1t appears also from the
testimony OF Leander Ferree that lie resorted
! to very careful means to make up his estimate
| of this land value. The testimony of the
Slessrs. Ferree is corroborated by that OF
| Musser and III support of their statement
about the IRON orc, they produce i'll court
| specimens which they allcge were taken from
tue excavation. Furthermore, these wit
| iiesses Tx the value OF the land. denuded or
stripped of all the timber upon it at SO per
acre Adding up Their several estimates vi
| value. all these three WITNESSES place it at Il
| iii.
| gage upon 1t ; aud Uriah Ferree states that he
would consider II mortgage OF s4O,OlO or
| aioOOO safe upon 1T. Here, then, as | have
before SAID, you have great discrepancy of
testimony, the defendant ) witnesses proving
the land to be almost. ii not wholly, worth
less, aud those Tor the plaintiff making totally
Inherent proof, and estimating 1t at II vulne
mnch beyond the face amount of mortgage
which Is 900 What are You to do III such
u distressing state of Contrarlety of testimony!
can only answer by telling you to give your
faith TO these WITNESSES VINO, i'll your indg-
ment are, under the circumstances most
worthy OF your credit. You must reconcile
The statements of these witnesses If you can
II You cannot gave your crrdence where i'll
your Judgment the most reliable proof exists
Let us now look ut the testimony. with
respect to the value Of the Gray farm i'll Rcd
Lion, upon which, as you Will reeollect, there
are Two murtSNgea-one for J,jU0 held by
Tor the INSURANCE company, plaintiff the for
MGR being considered prlur lien to the latter
aiId the latter beng part OF the company
assets. Mr.. James 3. Henry, one vi the
defendants witnesses, puts its cash value at
S6,ulu the quantity OF land being, az he saws
~ acres. Mr. Charles Il. Ash, another one
OF these witnesses, thinks it would lie worth
1,OUO and MIR, j. thomas Price, the assessor
OF the hundred, aud MIR. John l.. Chears also
testify 10 It's value, one putting it at ~, 100
and the other at 5bOJO. All these witnesses
reside III the hundred and are familiar with
the Ii nd. And the same is also the case with
the plaintiffs witnesses, Messls. Lewis Il. Pen
uington, Thomas W. Alct'rucken. William j.
STROUD ana theodore. Jones, Who none OF
Them rate the land at less price than : IL, OD0
dlid Jones says 1t contains lJU acres. Here Is
other dlscrepant testimony; but as the vii
uesses are personally known, no doubt to
SOME OF you, You Will have perhaps less diff
Guilty than Iii the other case III determining
where you should decide the best estimate to
Ue. rhuud you take the estimate OF the defend
ant WITNESSES, rather than that OF the PLAN
TN 4. then the company mortgage would be
Insecure; but otherwise, If You rely most upon
the latter.
According to my recollection, there was
no proof offered By either side OF the value ui
the Clinton county land. that is, the land iii
That county III IenllaylNauIa, except that ul
the Mltiusa William Bright, Who testified, on
lHSSttdS, lhul iv luile lutlulIleS Ill 1lIlluuCl
plih OF persons who SAID they were familiar
With 1t, and, from such, LIE iet 1t was safe tor
what They were putting upon it, and that
'uch llllry was made Ueture lie presented
MS iirst report. In the absence vi any proof
from The defendant you will be warranted III
concluding That this tract was worth at least
the amount of the deed, S5,U1O; but you are
not bound to do So but may treat the proof
u value made lis Insufficient.
1t appears from the testimony that another
part OF the assets OF this company consisted
u mort Sages, one of $4,000 OH what Is called
Inc Nichols farm III Kent county near
DUPONT station on the Delaware railroad and
the other one tor SJ,U0U and the other tuf
1910 ON what Is called the Mehec tarm uIl
the opposite side OF the county road. the first
coutullIIlig 2S2 acres, and the second | "A acres
according to tue testimony of MIR. Andrew j.
Allson. Ihe company 5 mortgage on the
NiclollS farm Is us stated Sj,0OU,u1
ami those mortgages on the Mckee
larm amount together TO S7,O0UUJ
II Is part OF the defendant = cast
% show the Insecurity of these mortgages,
and ne has produced before you the wltnesaes
Andrew j. Wilson and Harry ID. l.eaiiied iur
that purpose VINO swear to their knowledge
vi the respective tracts having known them
iur MANY years he former estimates the
Nichols farm to be worth about 80. % per
acre and the Mckee farm about S5UUO. uis
estimate gives II value to the Nichols farm OF
-tuJlto Sustain the mort sage OF giul1 against
ItMhd to the Achee larnl Il value OF -, 80 only
10 support the two mortgages against it vi
@AuuU Mr.. Learned puts the Mckee farm
$40 higher per acre thus raising the value by
tne sum of @l.ti6 and making the value Of
the whole the sum of -6.J60, iS4J less than
the mortgages against 1t. He rates the
Nlcnois taln ut the same price per acre that
Nilsson does. The result Is that the Nichols
farm. according to the value set upon 1t by
HE defendant witnesses, Is S2,O5N. or two
llltlls, greater than the mortgage of the com
PGny upon il. while the value of the Mckee
farm, according to wilson. is 81 ,9Ga less than
the mortgages, and according to Learned
only s4l less, ! ne plaintiff III reply to this
testimony has produced before you two wit
llesseS ON his part, William McCauley, of
Wilmington WHO owns land adjoining the
nichols tract and Moses Rash. of Kent
county, Mr.. Met aullcY land agent or steward
tlllru. and one vino haS always known these
lands sir. Alctaulley puts the Nichols farm
1T 'saV per acre, higher by - than the e,ti-
mate ot Wilson and Learned, thus raising its
Nalnc to -, lln on ~, 40 above the mortgage.
and the Mckee farm ut 500 10 500 per acre
thus falriug It's vaine ut the lowest rate to
$500 or sltuD mote thun the mortgages
against it and Mr.. Rash values the Mckee
tariu ut the latter rate, or rs he said. u, Oul,
which lie SAID 1t would bring ut cash sale
and the Aicl0s farm AT the same value ns
the defendant : witnesses did, 30 per acre
Mr. Rash, III reply To a question, said that he
should regard -, uO,l II safe Investment on The
Mckee Farm. There Is no other testimony
about the value of these lands. and Won must
therefore make ~ yuur minds us to Their
yUue from It, There seems to be no diner
tncc of serious character abont the Nichols
farm. the mortgage upon which seems to be
we'll secured bnt there Is discrepancy of
estimate about the Mckee farm. and Won
must reconcile it ii You can il YOU cannot
you must select that yOu think entitled to
most weight and give Your assent To il, bear
ing III mud ut the SAME time that one of the
defendant WITNESSES l4earned) estimates. as
| have said, the Mckee farm at n price which
is equal to the face of tile mortgages less tue
sum of so.
ho defendant also offered witnesses to
prove the value OF certain land, amounting to
1862 acres situated in 5lurdGrklll hundred in
kent county, lying between the Willow Grove
station and Canterbury III what il known as
the"Owls Nest section Mr.John II. Guoden,
the recorder of Kent county, one Of thuse wit
uesses thinks ii would not be safe to loan
more than $4,000 on the credit of the whole.
Ex-Shern WIlds, another OF those witnesses.
sold ~ acres of the whole under legal pro-
cess at the sum of 7}2,0O and another tract
of l653 acres for the sum of Slll.0O and
J. ii. HOifeeker, Jr., Esq, of this bar, testified
that at sale made 10 foreclose the first
mortgage on this whole land, he bought it in
for his client at the sum of n 900. Ii appears
by the Kent county mortgage records that
there was tirst mortgage on this body of
land of S6,0OD, and a second mortgage of
Sl5,OD0 made to the plaintiff in this action
IL appears also, by the Kent county deed
records that this land was conveyed by the
defendants witness. George b. Money during
III.