The daily gazette., 1882-12-09
COURT DOINGS TO-DAY.
THE coE CASE GIVEN TO THE
JURY.
THE CHARGE OF JUDGE HOUSTON
An Interesting Promissary Note Case
Put on Trial After the Coe Jury Re
tires.

At the opening of court yesterday after.
noon Richard Harrington, Esq, continued
his argument for the defense I'm the Coe-
English case, He spoke earnestly and en-
phatically upon the ownership of the pro
perty sold by Constable English, claiming
that without shadow OF doubt the stock
sold belonged to John r. Wilson ard not to
Russell Coe. The plaintiff, he claimed, had
not proved that the farm was the property
of Coe, and even If 1t was the stock and
personally belonged to Wilson. Wilson had
the right, SO Geo. w. Thomas, his overseer
stated, to take what produce and poultry
when and In such quantities as he wished.
Thomas was engaged by Wilson and only
understood" that Coo owned the place.
Mr.. Harrington indulgsd In his usual
dramatic language and style and held the
jury throughout the entire address. His
jokes upon the Alderney bull in question
created much merriment, which sometimes
widened into broad grin.
AT O'Clock George III. Bates, Esq, fol-
lowed for the defense, speaking until 8
o'clock. George Gray, Esq, closed for the
plaintiff, and at 5.45 court adjourned until
$50 this morning, the jury expressing their
desire to wait until that time to be charged,
which will be delivered by Judge Houston.
THIS MORNINGS SESSION.
When court opened this morning Judge
Houston began his charge to the Coe jury.
He said that both parties during the hearing
of the case had, notwithstanding the wrang-
ling INDUCED in by counsel, proved sub
stantially the same thing-that Russell Coe
was the owner. He thought that Coe with
out doubt was entitled to receive verdict
for the full value of the goods sold and
taken away. Even-if all the testimony
ruled out had been admitted, as offered by
both parties, the evidence would only
have gone to strengthen the fact
that Russe] Coe was the owner of the stock
and the only one who really sustained loss
by their sale. Mr.. Coe was also entitled co
receive interest on the amount of value as
fixed by the jury, from the time of the sale
until the present time. As far as the several
defendants were concerned, the jury could
decide what connection, II any each Of them
had In the sale of the stock, and the amount
of damage for which each was liable.
At 1910 the jury left the room, when Mr..
Harrington stated that he wished to note an
exception to the charge of the court.
ACTION ON PRoMIssoRY NOTE.
The suit of Charles Z. McCarty VS.. John
J. Lockwood was called and jury drawn.
1t was announced by Lore, counsel for
plaintiff, that the suit was action on
promisory note made by John j. Lockwood,
1874, payable In eight months, to the amount
of S256.69. The note, which was dated at
Middletown, Del, went to protest, and now,
with interest and the cost of protest,
amounted to S372.15. II was made payable
to d. f. Sipperly.
John s. Crouch, clerk In the Citizens
National Bank of Middletown, testified that
in 1875 he was Notary Public aud pro-
tested the note of Lockwood on the ground
of non-payment, he having no funds in the
bank.
George Esselstein, New York lawyer,
sworn Have no interest In the note at all
was present when the note was transferred
by Sipperly to McCarty; it was given to
McCarty on account of money owed him by
sipperly.
Mr.. Lore called attention to the fact that
on its face the note was made payable to ID.
F. Spperly and was endorsed by d. +.
Sipperly.
John Biggs, ESQ.,, for the defense, then
stated the case, which briefly was as follows:
d. f. Sipperly visited Middletown selling
patent pruning-knives. After some time
Sipperly sold the patent right to sell the
knives to Lockwood for the amount of the
note given. At the time of the sale num-
ber of the knives were In possession of a
Mr. Blackway which Mr.. Lockwood was to
get in consideration of the note. When the
latter went to procure the knives Blackway
refused to deliver them, inasmuch as he had
given receipt for them to Sipperly, and he
would not give them up until that receipt
was recovered by him. Afterward Sipperly
denied that he had agreed to transfer the
knives to Lockwood, who refused to pay the
note.
Mr.. Lore said there was no fact connect
ing McCarty with any fraudulent trans
action, and he therefore was an innocent
holder.
james Tatnall, sworn-Was with d. F.
Sipperly In 1874; went with around the
country selling the pruning knives; Sipperiy
was now dead; Lockwood bought two
knives; the latter was asked to buy patent
right for sale of knives, $500 being the
price asked; that was in the fall; in December
the proposition was again made to Lock
wood to buy the patent right the matter
was talked over by Sipperly, Tatnall and
Lockwood, the latter agreed to buy the
right; number of pruning knives, In
the possession of Mr.. Blackway, were a
portion of tho agreement. Mr.. Lock-
wood wanted to buy the right to
sell in Cecil county; Sipperly could not sell
in that county because he had partly prom
ised to sell Cecil county to Mccoy and
Blackway; Lockwood didn't want buy right
of New Castle county, as so many knives
had already been sold there; knives
sold at 50 and-S10 pair; fnally Lock
wood bought New Castle county; saw
the note given; Sippcrly and witness
then went to Middletown; when Lockwood
tried TO get the knives Blackway wouldn't
give them up as he was responsible to
Sipperly for them; Sipperly said to Lock
wood at the time the note was given, that
Blackway had between 33 and 40 knives
which Lockwood was to get.
The direct examination finished, Mr.. Lore
began to cross-examine the witness, but
nothing new was elected. He did not know
and never saw McCarty.
CONTINUED In second edltlon,l
--N< HS~~s---
Mr.. LOuderbough's Success.