Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1881-05-26
WHAT WAS DONE IN COURT

W Hal W hD DUNE llN OODll
A YJRDICT FOR DEFENDANTS IN
THE MULRIN NE-tE CINE.
A Quo WarrantO for DIR. FrOst-Ihc
Verdict In the sfewarf-B Bright
Case Murine VS.. Washington
Lodge, No. ., Il. o. q. F.-Another
Funny Witness.
Court reassembled at 8 O'Clock p, m. yes
terday week.
DIR. Tantum again took the stand in the
Stewart Bright case and was cross examined
by the plaintiff y counsel; said that he together
with Messrs. Bright aud johnson conferred
with the Delaware City company with view
to buying their stock up and consolidating it
with their company. That they acted as in-
divdnals in this transaction that there had
been up to tins time no organization OF the
Delaware State Fire and Marine Insurance
Company, but that he had voted for Mr. Bright
al President of the in future company and
MIR. Bright had voted for him for director
that he had agreed to take 55.UDO worth of
stock and had paid for 1t by assigning
mortgage to the company whose face value
was 46,l25 He said this assignment wla
regularly recorded in the recorders oiltce
That no interest on this mortgage had heen
paid to the company.
iHbilith IlblcUHiD. I.hu.s Whh Chiitd unu
testified that there was no assignment of any
mortgage by DIR. j. II. rantum to the D. s.
4. x NJ. |. Co. recorded in his Office
James H. Henry said the meeting over the
Gazette office was not an official meeting, but
the gentlemen conferred together az mdi-
yiduals.
The defendants counsel recalled DIR. Tan
tum to the stand, when he testified that the
assignment he had spoken of was recorded in
Mercer county, New Jersey, the place where
the property was situated.
The testimony being all i'll George Gray,
ESD, addressed the jury on the evidence that
had been brought ont before them. He
claimed at the hands of the jury verdict for
81, 900 and interest. because, from the testi-
mony of Mr.. Frazer, the plaintiff could have
got that amount from him, he having Actually
offered Mr.. Stewart that for the stock, and
kept the offer open for year, all this time
Mr.. Stewart being unable to get it from Mr..
Bright. The plaintiffs counsel spoke for
half an hour
to proceed with his argument, and the court
granting the request an adjournment was
ordered until 10 O'clock next morning.
Court met Thursday ut the usual hour.
George Bates, Esq, made an appica-
ton for rule to be laid upon William
j. Frost, ID. D., to appear and show cause
why information III the nature of u writ of quo
,rdrrdnto should not issue against DIR. Frost
compelling him to show by what right he
holds the position of rector of Trinity Church
III this city. The rule was granted and made
returnable Saturday. Benjamin Nields, Esq.
appeared az counsel for the rector.
Charles B. Lore, Esq, commenced his
argument IN the Stewart-Bright case at l0.15
O'Clock. There was quite a tilt between
counsel at the outset Mr.. Lore yesterday
put in evidence book containing among
other things, minutes of two meetings. He
claimed this morning that by the admission
of the book for this purpose. the whole book
and everything in it was in evidence before
the jury. He claimed that if Mr.. Gray objected
to the other items in the book it was his
duty to object to those items then and why
did he not do it.
Mr.. Gray said as the learned counsel had
called him to order for derelicton of duty. he
would tell him why he had not objected at
the time. II was because he had not supposed
a member of this bar would be guilty of IL
trick. and try ill this manner to slip i'll eYi-
deAce that had not been brought out on the
trial.
The Court ruled that only the minutes of
the two meetings were in evidence.
Mr.. lore occupied the attention of the jury
until 11.30. He made the point that il MIR.
Bright held the stock for the company there
was no conversion by him personally. The
plaintiffs counsel took issue with Mr.. Lore
on this point, and the Court ruled against the
latter gentleman.
MIR. Brights counsel contended that the
plaintiff had not been damniiied, at any rate,
not to a greater degree than $3.50 the amount
actually agreed to be paid for the stock lie
dwelt at length upon the hardship that would
have fallen upon the good old farmer Frazer
who offered to trade Stewart his "a 900 farm
for this $3.50 worth of stock, il the bargain
| could have been consummated
George Gray, ESD, opened his closing
| argument for the plaintiff at l1.35 He
| explained the case to the jury an follows
| As have said this is an action of trover. an
action by which we claim II return of the Ger
| titicates of stock kept from ns by William
| Bright, and also the damage we have sut
fered by their detention. We have shown
| you by the evidence of Mr. Frazer that tins
| plaintiff could actually have sold these certli-
| Gates for "A, 600 if he could have got them out
of the hands of MIR. Bright who unawfnlly
| detained them. The man who was willing
to pay this amount for them il the man
| whom we put on the stand before you, and
| he said he kept this offer to Stewart open
| for year.
When the stock was bought by the plaintin
there was really no such company NJ the Del
aware State Fire and Marine Insurance Com
| pany in existence. 1t il Just the same as If
three or four of us should get together. elect
each other officers, and resolve to buy ap the
shares of the Pennsylvania railroad; the only
thing il the Pennsylvania railroad officials
might object.
MIR. Bright cannot say he held these certifi-
Gates for the company because there was no
company i'll existence at the time the shares
were deposited with him as security for the
check he had loaned Stewart.
The learned counsel had dwelt at length
| upon the hardship attempted to be practced
| upon Mr.. Frazer. and how he was protected
tl,.a, Of htt
we have nothing to do with this We must
only consider here tue legal aspect of this
| plaintiffs claims. Mr.. Lore has descanted
upon the bad character of Stewart, upon his
being a sharper, Nc, but tine worst his evi-
dence has actually shown against Mr. Stewart
was that he was i'll company with his client
What is more, he was the only one elected AN
officer of this would-be company who had
actually bought any stock i'll it.
The learned counsel has painted a Very
pretty picture about the blackness of Mr.
Stewards character. Now all l have TO say
about this il that it does not lie i'll Mr.
Brights mouth, speaking through his counsel
to say anything about the character of this
plaintiff, or any of his sharp practices. | dc
not wish TO assail Mr.. Bright but he is moi
the man to assail Mr.. Stewart for his actiunl
i'll regard to the ID. s. +. Il NJ. |. Co. The
learned counsel has held up beautiful mirrol
before Mr.. Stewart to show his character. but
L
in this whole transaction, peering over hi
houlder INTO the same mirror the learned
counsel has tried to hold up before Mr.
Stewart. Mr.. Gray closed his argument Al
1870.
CHARGE OF THE COURT
Chief Justice Comegys delivered the charge
of the Court. He defined the law in action
of trover, which, though familiar to the lega
fraternity, are seldom brought III our courts
Usrally here i'll controversies about persona
property an action of replevin is resorted to
But, where the thing in controversy has beeI
converted by one party to his own ust
he may resort to an action of trover, as ast
where the possession of it has been denied t.
the other party, on the ground that sucl
denial is n conversion on the part OF th
other.
There are two things necessary to be proyei
to sustain this action:
First-That the property was that of tn
plaintiff and that lie had right to possess j
at the time of the alleged conversion.
Second-That the sale to the plaintiff wa
actual and absolute and not contingent upol
an agreement to he fulfilled before the pro
perty was delivered. There must have bee
not only an absolute right to the property bu
an absolute right to the possession of tina
property at the Time the demand was mad
upon Mr.. Bright.
There has been great deal of evidenc
taken i'll this case, said the Court, and it is i
very much of muddle but the facts appea
to be: These gentlemen were directors in tw
distinct corporations, the Delaware State Fir
and Marine Insurance Company and the Del
aware Mutual Fire insurance Company
They found it advantageous, for some reason
to blend these two companies in some wa
; into one and, without giving themselve
much trouble to find ont whether they ha
any right to do it or not. they set to work