The daily gazette., 1882-12-16

aa,ournment AFTER a Hong and Tiresome
Term which will be Remembered as
the One of Little Work and Hung
Juries.
When court met at o'clock yesterday
afternoon the jury in the Powell. Conrad
case was discharged, again having declared
its inability TO ever agree.
The Lynch Martin matter was tnen re-
sumed by Mr.. Lore. After making Q few
preliminary remarks he took up and con.
sidered the afiidavits which were presented
to impeach the sworn statement OF Ihomas
Toy, All the affldavits stated that Toy was |
not at the polls during the entrie day, nus |
did not deny he was present at the voting |
place. One of the affidavits, that'of Henry |
Dupont, was qualified by the statement that
| Toy was away from the window OF the poiis
| some time.
There was no denying of the assertion
| that 80 illegal votes were cast at the polls
| on election day. Positive evidence OF course
| always outweighed mere heresay. The
| affidayits of the respondent were criticised
| as not meeting the affidavit Of the relator,
and the weak points In them shown up. The
assertion of Toy that 80 illegal votes had
been cast for Martin showed that there was
A defect in his title He agreed with Mr.
Bradford that the burdeHSf proof did rest
with Mr.. Martin to show that he was legally
elected. When, In the pleading Martin
should show that he had legal title, then
the burden of proof would come back 10
the relator. There were many discrepancies
in the various counter affdavits, some de-
claring one thing and others another. IL
was not proved that Thomas Toys affidavit
was not conclusive.
Mr.. Higgins thought the exhaustive char
acter of his colleagues argument made his
task comparatively easy. He reviewed the
\ remarks OF the other speakers, and wanted
Nto know how Thomas Toy knew that ~ ille-
of gal ballots we're cast, and cast Tor James
,5s Vartin, The rule asked for could not he
E, Aanted because Toys affidavit was insufli-
eiAt. Mr.. Higgins spoke for about one
hor and half, concluding at 5.2U.
,. Az the conclusion OF the argument the
as ChieiJustice remarked that the case was a
very dficult one from ordinary applications
for a.rthe. There was reason why the
matter should be well examined into, ana
he proposed with the approval OF counsel &c
take some tims TO do SO. The whole sub.
ject would be taken into consideration ano
Judgment delivered at the first days meet
ing of the Court of Appeals, on the first day
of January next, in Dover. After consider
able discussion it was mutually agreed tina
h the case should eomeup on the second dsl
i, of the next term, Feb. Z, 1888. The cour
- requested the counsel on both sides TO pre-
III sent their briefs and citations OF authorities
JAMES H. AARON AGAIN.
'n BY this time all the judges were evidentl
ch very anxious to leave the bench and adjourn
-, The Chief Justice did so, and after littl
y" quibbline the matter of dissolving tn
ch foreign attachment issued against the pre-
perty OF James II. Aaron was agai
taken up.
Mr.. Nields moved to have the attachmen
dissolved, but counsel on the other side OF
IS jected, and they were permitted to call
the stand Benjamin II. Money, a brother
James Ii. Aaron's. The witness was ques
toned us to Aaron's condition before
: disappeared, and also as to the latter's bus
- ness affairs. All matters of record wei
.es adSaasedt S Sst the following tscts of ntsEs
he did not appear to be sick; he went
Chicago; no one knew where he wa
~ and he never wrote to his vile
he at last wrote to Witnei
as fellows: 81 want you to send me mone
by post office order, $50, Immediately, as
Ies want to come home to attend to business,
X, nv absence is being misrepresented." WI
ha ! ness went on to Chicago and found Aaro
is in the post office; went there because
pie thought he would expect letter, and di
"a. a. not write; Aaron first stopped at 50 We
is Washington street, Chicago; ! lived with b
n In wife, who is my sister, and during his a.
Of sence supported her and her children, wi
hh | WOulu OLItfMlst nave bldAFN01 Atu Az
notice anything unusual IN Aaron's appea
or auce when he was in Chicago; Aarc
lived under an assumed maine in Chicag
; Mr. Nields handed Money a note OF b
for S175 and asked II he didn't owe that
/. Aaron He said yes, but that Aaron owe
:. him $500. The reply caused laugh at M
Nield's expense. The witness then pr
E duced a note of his own for $500 payable
Aaron, which he said was what Aaron owt
| no la the 0thpr
~ but the witness explained that he had had
at ~ transaction with Aaron about some hors
ts and had never received his money.
The court at last agreed to dissolve Il
attachment with costs, II not having be-
md proved that Aaron had changed his rel
- dence.
to A DECISION GRANTED.
.ns n, decision was given by the court in t
case of Henry E. Shimp VS.. Seidell, Has
- ings & Co., argued at the last term OF U
Superior Court. The claim was S36323 I
three carloads of charcoal supplied to q
the PENDANTS order; the defense pleaded set-t
ei'' and recoupment, the whole OF the order n
having been executed and the defendant
as they claimed, being put to
18th ditional expense in supplying Z
wn deficiency. Plaintiff demurred to t
nj. nj. plea and the court sustained the demurre
for holding that the special plea was bad, b
'm- that it could be given in evidence under
all general issue. The decision establishes t
will noint that when an order is only part
tote aayoontod tho amonnt of The executed DC
tiop NAV be sued for while the delenda
q may plead the damages caused by nome
= livery of the remainder instead of having
bring counter action for breach of &C
Will tract as heretofore. Charles B. Lore, Es'
mes represented the plaintiff and Anthony IL
gins, Esq, the defendant.
Court adjourned late in the afternoon
the February term.
ab- NEW LIQUOR BALIFF.
s srs. On Wednesday afternoon William
kes fad Brady, liqur balllf for this city, handed
''ua ;,a resignation to the Superior Court. Yest