The daily gazette., 1880-12-07
THE SUPERIOR COURT.
CLOSE OF THE LAST SESSION AT
NEW CASTLE.

after the eling of Court, this mora
ing, Chief Justice Comegys charged the
jury In the case of the Delaware .S'a'e
Fire aud Marine Insurance Company ps.
VIM. L. Croasdale A summary of tho
charge was promptly forwarded to the
GAZETTE, and the following are some of
the salient points
THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP.
The witnesses for the plaintiff have
proved that the defendant was editor In
chief of the Ecery Erening, and that the
libelOus articles were published in the
editorial columns Of that paper. Bell and
Humphrey occasio ally wrote editorials
for the paper, but they did not write
the in question, nor did they know
who wrote them. They also testified that
other parties occasionally wrote editorial
articles, but they did not know who these
parties were. The plaintiff has offered
proof that the defendant wrote the
editorials, and the question is is this
proof sufficient for the jury. Ii it is not,
then they should return verdict Of "not
guilty." and that ends the matter.
THE EFFECT OF MALICE.
The charge specially informed the
jury how the question of malice could
affect their verdict. IL they believed that
every one of the defendants charges
were true and proper for public informa-
| tomb should find that the defend
| ant, at the time, was actualed by malci-
Gus and lnischievous motives they can
| find Tor the plaintiff The
motives can be gathered from the
circumstances Of the publication, aad If
none thereby appear, they must be taken
from the paper Itself.
WAS THB PLAINTIFF FRAUD?
On this ground the charge reviewed.
| AT length the evidence In regard to The
assets Of the company. 1t had been tes
ufied that no capital stock had been sub
scrbsd .at .he organlzstlon, but thai
mortgages were accepted aud if these
mortgages were really worth their face
value, then the company had capital
IL these morfRagseawere OF low value
then the jury can Justly conclude tht
company was fraud, unles the plaintiff q
makes them good TO their satisfaction
| There has been no direct effort on either
! side to lmpeach the character OF witness
| es, and they all appear To be men ol
| good character, although there is wids
| discrepancy In their statements. In re
gard to the Dsuphin county land, she
defendants wi'resses testified that l
was poor land with only small qaant
" of timber, three and one.haif mile'
| from the nearest railroad station, and NJ
indications of ores or minerals. They
drew a dreary picture, and gave yalu,
70 the land OF not mLrs than So per acre
If this evidence is taken by the jury a
lrue, then the chief asset of .hs com
parry is worthless, aud the policy holder
are In a sorry plight. On the other hand
the witnesses for the plaiutitf.-the Messr
Ferre aud NJ Musser--testify 10 ihelr specia
/ knowledge OF The land, and give In dt
| tail the quantity and valus Of the timbe
il contains. Uriah +. Ferrse saws b
would consider mortgage for $4,000 O
the property perfectly safe. Here Is
great discrepancy, and the Court tel
Sou 10 give faith to those who, unde
he circumstances are most worthy {
credit, if you are unable to reconcil
conflicting statements.
WHERE ~ THE FRAUD?
The charge next referred 10 the fat
that there did not appear to he any will
Irawal of policies from the compan
nntil after the at acks of the Every Eu
nina, Henry did not withdraw from u
Presidency of the company on accoul
of snspsoIed f-aud-On the contrary l
said he did not think 1t a fraud. But Il
| he Jury to determine whether or not
was fraud, they must weigh the test
mony on both sides, and draw their i
ference. Ia the examination made |
Mr.. Muir, al mortgages ard notes we
excluded from the comp lny's asset
which left the company with no sour
basis-but whether or not IL was frat
| 10 f.r tho iuTV To nntg
mine. II may have been guily OF gro
lmprudence without being fraud.
There seems to be but one case OF al
| insured party having list anything |
the company, and Dr.. Tantuu aud othe
1 testify that II haq paid III lDss 's betwe'
$4,000 and Sl8 900 since October 1871:
Atll20o'ciock the charge was hhis
et AMI the jury after gathering togeth
ali the documentary evidence in u
case retired TO their chamber.
VERDICT.
At10m m,uut.s of dve O'Clock in t
i evenipg. he iHry came into court a
e announced verdict "fOr the defen
antD Attbe request of counsel for t
nlalutiff the Jury we're polled, but ea'
b man respopded in turn "for the defeI
ant"
9 HOW THEY STOOD.
II, ,isstated that on the first ballot t
t Jury stood four Tor the pialnuH
4 eIpht TOR the defendant. Again th
:. stood ten to two, and finally the dlssel
~ ingtwo went over to the majority. "
ofthe iurymen afterwards stated u
thAv threw out of the company's ass
, ali the mortgages that Commisson
l. McFee had rejected, leaving their gr'
B. assets at S3l, 600, with the liaoiht
amounting to $50 900 with TINS sho
ing, Notwithstanding the stock risks
I'll ,he company amounted 10 oniy @o'
S, SI2aO0O, of which the lurylnaan b"
D. "Ob, we did not think OF that'
OTHER BUSINESS.
Of After the close of the libel suit
a Clemson case was further argued, a
Court reserved its decision.
,f The next case argued was that
Iacob B. Cazier vs.. Lum's adminlslra
- Wm.C. Spruance, Esq, for plant
r George Gray, Esq, for defendant L
facts seem 10 be these:
isaac A. Lnm and wife gave mi
to GAGE on the property. After his dealh'
of so1 the defendant, Charles A. Lu
er cave a mortgage upon his interest.
ch and the widow were appointed admir-
LIT Irator and administratrix. The
morIpage was paid. The creditor
der The second mortgage now asks
he the remainder of the money, no"
~ ~ co RI. be paid to him and not TO Tue
ne ministrator (Charles a. Lun)'
ih- court SO ordered. M,
rhe case of Croasdale VS.. DR.. lan'
er, IN which damages were recovered
,,,, i.ot tap,., for HInD. was OTOu