The daily gazette., 1880-12-02
From Yesterdays Late Eaitien.
THE SUPERIOR COURT.
THIS MORNINGS SESSION:
ANOTHER wHACK AT THE TRIAL LIST,
AND A NUMBER or CASES DISPOSED
OF.
Specially reported for the Gazette.

NEW CASTLE, Dec, /.
Court met at 10 o'clock, this morn
ing, Chief Justice Comegys and Judges
Wootten and Houston on the bench.
The trial list was taken up, and a
number of cases previously passed
were continued until the next term
The following were disposed Of:
Solen 5. Andrews, VS.. Isaac Grubb,
Sheriff, replevin; judgment for defend
ant, for costs.
Andrew Hance, assignee, VS.. BENZ.
+. Wells and wife, mortgage foreclos-
ure; judgement for plaintiff.
Singer Manufacturing Co., vs.. J. z.
Sneidt, replevIn, referred to coun-
sci.
Michael Holland VS.. Patrick Hol-
lands administrative; judgment for
plaintiff.
James Conahan vs.. VIM. Pritchett,
replevin; settled.
Pancoast 81 Craven, VS.. Karl Specht
Judgment for plaintiff, with the usual
stay of execution.
Lewis Cox, d. b. a., VS.. Jas. Grubb,
p. b. r.; settled, costs to be paid by the
plaintiff below.
A jury was then drawn to try the
case of VIM. +. johnson. p. b. a., VS..
John Boyle, d. b. r. John Ii. Rodney
ESD, for the defendant below, and J.
r. Booth, Esq, for plaintiff below.
The case, as stated by Mr.. Booth, was
that johnson put a tin roof upon an
addition to the house of Boyle,an made
charge for 500 square feet of roofing, at
cents per foot, amounting to $35. This
is the amount involved in the suit. Both
parties reside in New Castle.
The character and extent of the work
was proved by James Keegan, an en-
ploye of Johnson's who testified that the
charge was not exorbtant.
The defense was that not Boyle, but
VIM. Glandin, the contractor for con-
structing the addition to the house,
arranged for the roofing. Mr.. Glandin
admitted that the roofing was In his
contract, and that he engaged johnson
TO do the work, but said that Mr.. Boyle
was TO pay the bills.
ID. NJ. Elkinton, one of the referees In
the suit from which johnson appealed,
said that at the time johnson had ad-
mitted be did not know Boyle in the
contracts; and j. ii. Swan, another re.
feree, said that johnson had remarked
that he was engaged to do the work by
Mr.. Glandin. In rebuttal, Mr.. Cooper,
who did the plastering at the house,
said he had been told by Glandin that
Boyle would pay hlm for the work.
Witness said he got part of his pay by
an order from Glandin on Boyle, which
the latter accepted.
The case was briefly argued, and the
Court charged the jury that the ques ion
In this case was who employed johnson
to do the work, aud was to pay for il.
| At ll.55 O'Clock the jury retired.
| In the case Of Andrew Jones, 4. b. a.,
Us VIM. n. Peak, p. b. ", judgment was
announced for defendant below amount
to be ascertained by the prothonotary.
A jury was next drawn in the case OF
Benz. +. Heimbach, rs, John Mccall ad.
Illustrator Of Margaret Mccall, Harry
oharpley, Esq, for plaintiff, and Ii. r.
Pennington, Esq, for defendant. The
amount claimed S63.75, ,with.probaie and
interest from March u, 1871, S7S,07 In
all for articles furnished and services al
the funeral OF the deceased. There wa.
no dispute of the bill, and jury verdict
was desired tor the purpose of binding
the real estate Of the deceased, verdic
was formally rendered by the jury for tie
amount.
THIS case rlosed the jury trials for the
present term.
Application was made by George
Gray, ESD, for rule to show caust
why the Sheriff7s sale of the property
of John j. Durham, at Townsend
should nst be set aside. The appli-
cation was made on behalf of the terre
tenants of part of the property known
as No. o, and their grounds were that
the property, while advertised by sec.
tions, was sold in lump, thus giving
the tenants no chance of protecting
their interests. The rule was made
absolute and the sale set aside.
At 1875 O'Clock, after an absence
of forty minutes, the jury in the case
of johnson VS.. Boyle, arrived at the
conclusion that Boyle was responsible
for the work done, and returned yer
dict for johnson for the full amount ol
his bill, $35.
The general Jury was then dis
charged until 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning.
An argument case was next taken W
| win bOhbCbi3 I1u
ward g. smith and Edward A. Price
parties named as executors In the las
will and Testament of Martha Smith
Clemson, appellants, Us. John Is. Glen
son, caveator. This is an appeal from
the Register of Wills, and the Lestator
In this case, one Martha Smith, hayi ul
made her will previous to her marriag,
with John Is. Clemson, the question
arose as To whether her marriage affect
ed.the validity of the WILL Before tn,
marriage Mrs. Clemson resided in ST
Louis, but Immediately afterwards sh.
came to Claymont, where her HUSBAND
resided. The marriage took place OF
Feb. 9th, 1873, and Mrs, Clemson die(
August l4th OF the same year.
The husband, who was mentioned In
the will, objected to its execution on IL,
ground that IL was nullified and revoked
by the marriage, and the Register, on ,
hearing OF the case, held that the obiec
ton was valid aDd..set the will aside. IN,
executors named above appealed, ant
the case Is now under settlement. Tn,
amount involved Is about S4 900 in DER
md