Daily Republican., 1881-05-18
FIFTH EDITION
THE SUPERIOR CO,rpr
ms Mornings session
courtney Case Con,inn III.
Christ Church Case u~fhe

In the Superior Court th;,
M Wm. Z. spruance, Esq, made aan",rIta1g
non Tor q continuance in ,ho "pplIea
EDWARD Iatnall W.. Henry r Il coae yase Of
on the ground OF the absrnr~n w. ~ SSouftDg
mai "itness,for the dcfense' " a a N't'
granted. '''''e' 1t wa,
The standing COMMITTEES on er,.
non OF law students reportod miaa' ,a
Georgc a, Elliott had passed w MAT
aplc examination. On motion ~ EsSilt' ut
Tor DUPONT, Esq, he wa, ,d,n;.. It.
practice at the bar. '"'''ca 70
Ihe iive cases of Soplli, ! n.;.
Terry l'ro., against the rp>,rrt,.. ,.,' 41d
nlSheesot Quinn x Bonner W,r. ",y ~ f. 'e'
to Philip PIunkett '''' 'rIei'I
Application was made hv co,..
Bates, Esq, in helalfot Cbor,ns, ~ Ts., t.
and Others of Christ Church +, fIoGl
CITY, for rules 10 be laid up5n E%Naie E;na
JohnS, Stewart and others rrnoiss N"i,y'
lhem to appear and show couI. L"n,as lug
an information in the uatmr. WI,
writ Of quo warrant1 .Iv sL..g q
not issue against them. The rnin i%'.Da @
granted aud made returuaL,a "m ' W"
Monday. The fact will ,hrn ha ~" arN
mined whether or not the inf,rnD.;eaI' "D.eI'
Sha'l issue against the defeudap, ""[,oa r,,,
lnahnlng them to vacatc the onas,iaa' .yn'
they claim 10 hold as tru,,pp. ',S.'oN of VI
church, in favor Of the n,ain.;at aae
who also claim to he n",'uS ,r",,as
If the information is granted i '',DI wifi
De IN the name of the Attorney. Ga"o, "n'
al, and will become u quo warran,o r.DpI' w.t.
tion, in which the State anopar ,Y 9S,T, IO,
plaintiff. '"' ~ 'N'
The Court was AT first in lorht d..
the jurisdiction because Of tha rason,,g
pending in the Chancery Conrt I'm, u
appearing that there was a leraI ono,
tlon involved on account 0f WITH
the Chancellor has withheld his dos.
ION until the common law Courts rnn0
pass upon it, the judges decided tba
the'y had jurisdiction and granted rb4
rule as asked for. "
The trial of the cas-, Of Henry
Stewart vs., VIM. Bright, was then +,
sumed The plaintiff produced rr.
dence to show that demand had h,r,
made upon Mr.. Bright, in due form or
the stock claimed by plaintiff, which
demand had been refused
Mr. Lore, in opening, for the dr,fri
ant, said the defense would be 10 mi, AZ
feet: When the affairs ofthe old DeIawre
State Fire and Marine Insurance
Company at Delaware City, We're worrl
up, II was decided to call in all rhr old
stock, which was then worth 5perrn
and REISSUE it again on payment oft,
actual value, and 50 per rent. of lis mr
value, in addition, making Sl37j Der
share, 10 provide a wOr&iNL rapi'al,
The plaintiff was party to thi, arrange. {
ment and agreed 10 take 2o1
shares. Mr.. Bright loaned lin the
$500 to pay the five per cent. He
failed to pay the 20 per cent though he
to giy"a mun-S.r and a farm
i'll Virginia for this payment The stoci Il
was still in possession Of the compUg
and Mr. Stewart could -rt il even nov
by payment of the rrqUirel j1per ce0r
The dctcnS" ATTEMPTED - prove h. L
contents of letter alleged 20 have las
written by Mr.. Stewart TOM" company
in relation to the payment t
Of this balance on the stock. Thr,na T.
was not offered Paul Bright, b I
Hawkins and Vim. Bright testified
that diligent search had been made in
it but it could not be found lanrE L
counsel objected to the almS,a u @
this proof, but court decided it ai@~s'
bic.
1t was then proved by D.. Tmm
that the letter in question up 70 fife,
that Stewart could not give promised
ON the Virginia farm be@~
his wife refused to sign i,
Court adjourned.