The daily gazette., 1880-05-18
FIFTH EDITION.
THE COUNTY COURTS.
WHAT WAS DONE AT THIS
= ia. MORNINGS SESSION. 2
SEVERAL MINOR MATTERS DIsPosED
OF, AND A JURY TRIAL ENTERED

Specially reported for the GAZETTE.
NEW CASTLE, May 10 1880.
Court opened at 10 o'clock, tbis morn
ing, Chief Justice Comegys and Judge
Houston on the bench.
In the case of Seymour Preston vs.
David .. Gillespie, judgment was en-
tered for the plaintiff, by agreement
of counsel, the amount to be ascer-
tanned by the Protbonotary.
On application OF Henry G. Turner,
Esq, IA. K. Pening on, Esq, was ap-
pointed commissioner to take testi-
mony in the divorce case Of John A.
Parker vs., Julia Parker. r.,..f
In the case of Enoch Moore, Jr., VS..
Mary Quinby, market for tiial, was
postponed until Thursday morning, on
application OF III. &. Turner, Esq, for
the plaintiff, on account of the absence
of a material witness.
A jury was drawn to try the case of
Washington Barron VS.. Richard Clay
ton. j. Ii. Rodney for plaintiff, and
J. l.. Vallandigham for defendant. -
This was an action on book account,
to the amount of $116 II.
The defense, in this case, attempted
to prove business partnership be-
tween Washington Barron and A. p.
Carnagy, which the plaintiffs denied.
The principal item of the book ac-
count was for peach wagon body,
part of the work on which was done
by A. p. Carnagy, blacksmith, Mr..
Barron being a wheelright. During
lie examination of Mr., Carnagy, Mr..
Vallandigh asked If he had received
compensation from MIR. Barron for
his work, and the witness rath 4
sharply replied, 81 don't know that
it's any your business.
The Chiet Justice here interposed
and told the witness he must answer
counsel respectfully, or lie would be
committed TO Jail. If questions were
askei that he objected 10 answering,
he must appeal to the court.
The defense then proceeded to prove
that the peach wagon in question was
imperfect in it's construction.
At II o'clock the argument in the
case was commenced, the plaintiff
claiming that the book account was
fully proved, and the defense claiming
that the wagon was not properly made,
and that the plaintiff refused to reme-
dy its defects when asked to do 40 Wy
the defendant. This. the defense
claimed, should be considered by the
jury in case they decided to award a
verdict for the plaintiff.
The defense further claimed that the
suit brought by, Washington Barron
would not lie in Court, as partner
ship between him and Carnagy had
been clearly established. If a verdict
was given TO Washin ,ton Barron, Mr..
Vallandigham asserted, it would not
be bar against subsequent suit by
the firm Of Barron e. CaInagy ON the
same account.
The Court, in charging the Jury said
If they were satisfied from the proof sd.
duced that a partnership existed be-
tween Barron and Carnagy, or that hey
had joint interest in this case, so as 10
make the defendant liable to both Of
them, the plaintiff would not be entitled
to recover. In regard to the plea of
imperfect constr uction of the peach
wagon, the Court aid where work was
not done according to contract, express
or implied, the party aggrieved can re-
turn the article to the maker; or he
may use it and make separate action
against .he maker for the loss sustained
by reason OF the defective construction.
The practice IN this state, the Court
said, was TO allow the party agg' ieved to
deduct the amount charged for the work
the damage he claims TO have suffered
from using the srtic c in its imperfectly
constructed condition.
At II o'clock the jury retired for
consultation.
A jury was next drawn in the case
of George 4. Ball vs.. Isaac Grubb.
Booth for plaintiff, Rodney for de-
fendant. ..
This is a suit brought for the re-
covery Of compensation due the plain
tiff for services rendered the defend
ant while the latter was Sheriff. The
services comprised the serving of GER
tain processes and taking charge of
certain property against which a for
eign attachment had been issued.
The property was the wooden mill of
James G.. Knowles, in New Castle.
The amount involved in the suit was
$100. Ths plaintiff charged for his
services $3.50, but the charge was dis
puted by Mr.. Knowles, and out of
about $165 costs in the case paid to
the sheriff, the latter paid Ball $152.
AT l2.45 o'lock, the jury in The case
of Barren vs. Clayton, came into Court
with a verdict for the plaintiff for
$l42.52,
In the case of Ball VS.. Grubb, the
plaintiff proved the services rendered.
and the defense made claim that Balls
claim was eXhorbltanL, and that the 1852
paid him was ample compensation.
At / O'Clock the sIgumentlin the case
was commenced, and shortly Afterwards