The Cecil Whig., 1883-01-13

nard on the morning of the 10Th Of Decem-
Der, 1881; did not see her when talking to
her husband: do not know her; never knew
or saw her before to my knowledge. Cross
examination: Taggart never came to see
me but once; did not see Mrs. Barnard at
the time of the conversation with her hus-
band; never dealt at store of Joseph Bar
nard; don't know Mrs. Barnard.
The defence here q o'clock closed their
case and the court took recess of an hour
TO allow the counsel to prepare their prayers
and the jury was discharged on Monday
morning.
AT about . o'clock, counsel having pre-
pared their prayers, the argument upon
them was begun, and was in progress AZ the
hour of adjournment
On Monday morning the argument OH
he prayers was resumed. The entire day
was taken up with this argument, which
was not concluded when court adjourned.
Court me: at 10 o'clock on Tuesday morn
ing, Judges Stump and Wickes on the
Bench and the argument upon The prayers
| in the Barnard case were continued, at the
conclusion of which-that took place at an
early day-the court proceeded to rule upon
the same The first prayer of the defend
ants was as follows: THAT there is 10
| legally Sufficient evidence that John Bar
nard was killed through the negligence of
the defendants" This prayer being grant
el by the court. virtually ruled the case
ut The jury was then directed by the
| 1i,t far ~. a.
| aud the case was ended.
the costs, which will foot up quite
large amount, will fall upon the plaintiffs,
and they being entirely unable financially
| to pay such an amount, the consequence
| will be hat the witnesses will have to whis-
| tie for their fees. The witness list IN this
case was the largest one known in our court
for long time. Much interest has been
manifested in the case by cur citizens, and
it was general thought that the plaintiffs
would recover at least nominal amount.
The sympathies of he people generally were
with the plaintiffs, and this ides was enter
tanned clear up to the time of the granting
of the above prayer by the court. The sud
den ending of the case was, therefore, a
surprise to almost everybod
The criminal list WAS then cal! !el and the
case of State rs. Charles Mathews, colored,
indicted for the larceny of an overcoat be-
longing 10 II. S. Peterson, of New Jersey,
was taken up. 1t appeared from the evil
d-nce that the .oat was taken from the
stable OF the Howard House, Mr.. Peterson |
having left it here for "a moment after re-
turning from a drive, and carried to Vim
singers mill, at the east end of town, where |
he WAS closely frllowrd and the coat re-
covered. He was Ilitd before Ale Court |
and verdict of guilty recorded: where |
upon The court sentenced him to Two years
connemrnt in the p-nirrnriary. Warbur-
ton tor defence, Crolhers for the State
The civi! docket was then taken up, and |
the case OF the State, Use of Joseph ii. Tosh,
guardian of j. Ellsworth Barrett u.s. Robert |
\. Hindman and others, an action on
guardians bond, was placed OH trial. W. |
>. Evans appearing tor Tosh and n. Con
stable for Hindinan. The grounds tor this /
suit are about as follows: James Tosh, de- /
ceased, by his will, left to his grandson, j. /
Sloo, To be paid to him upon his arrival AT
,wenty-one years of age, the interest on the
same in the interval to be paid to designated |
parties. Joseph II. Tosh was named as ex
ecutor of the WILL and under it Nicholas /
Barrett WIS appointed guardian of said
minor. The records of the Orphans Court
show thar h. said legacy was paid over to
the guardian by the executor, it having
been allowed To the credit of said executor
by the court. The guardian, however, de-
MED having received it. IT,. was thereupon
relieved of his guardians hip and the execu-
tor, Joseph ii. T"sh, appointed in his stead,
aud suit brought against his boudsrnan,
kot"rL \. Hindman for the recovery Of the
legacy. All day Wednesday was occupied
In arguing certain dernurrers offered upon
the part Of rhe plaintiff, and without CON
Guiding the case the court adjourned.
Court met AT 10 o'clock A. NJ. on Thursday
Judges Stump aud Wickes ON the bench. -
Evidence i'll the case of To-h rs Hindmau
WAS heard and the jury without leaving the
box returrr' verdict for the plaintiff for
S39l 90. W. Evans for plaintiff; Consta-
BILE for defendant
The case of the Champion Machine Com
pany, suit upon "A note, was taken up, hut
WAS not concluded, as time was required to
allow the court To rule upon certain de.
inurrers offered. This case is about AS fol |
lows: Mr.. Strickland purchased from the
Champion Company certain machines, one
"f which he sold to L farmer near town,
taking in part payment therefor his note fo
about 500. This note was transferred 10
the Champion Company aui accepted by .
them in settlement. This was in the year
1919 or 1876. The Company attempted TO
collect the note from the drawer; hut fail
ing in this, now bring suit against Mr.
Strickland "n the original contract to re-
cover the amount of the more
While the court held under consideration
the dtmnrrerS above referred TO- the case of
Jesse j. Cole rs WIN NJ Sirg-rly WAS put
upon trial, Hon II. Mccullough and r. C.
Iharker, Esq appearing for plaintiff, and
". +. W'rhurr"n E>,l. anh Hon. Alex
Evans for the Defendant. This w.e :. suit
iur the ba lance of one years wages accord
ing To the evidence of the plaintiff. Mr
Singarly, owner of Providence paper mills,
employed the plaintiff, who is a practical
paper maker, for one year, for which ser
vice lie was TO receive one thousand dollars.
At the end of one month Mr.. Singery, or
his representative, discharged Mr.. Cole, re.
iusing to pay him for more ilIap one months
work, and Mr.. Cole brought suit to recover
| The remainder of the years wages. As we
20 TO press the argument before the court
| upon the prayers offered in the is in
progress, aud will probably continue the
remainder of the day.