Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1883-12-20


fed with either OF the machines and NV.
less they did better he wouldn't nav,
them.
Another witness was examined, and
Mr., Nelds then closed his case.
Charles McWh0rter was recalled and
testified that on the day the machines
were tried hs ssw White driving the
Champion, aud he said to the sitness
that the machine had a very severe trial
but did first rate. The examination o.
tuis witness consumed considerable time
as Mr.. Yields would object to almost
every question asked by Mr.. Lore, but IL
was finally concluded and he retired.
Sswall d. Scott testified that he is EN-.
ployed by Mr.. MoWnorter and knew Of
the sale OF the machine to Mr.. Seal. lie
was on the farm the day the machine was
tried and heard no complaint about the
wey in which 1t worked.
After the examination of another wit,
ness, the court adjourned until Friday
morning at 9 O'Clock.
AT 3 30 O'Clock the Jury in the second
mechanics lien case of Duncan vs.. james
II. Aaron, came in with verdict in favor
of the plaintiffs for $l81.50, and the
court dioharged all jurors, not empsneled
In the case on trial, from further atten-
dance.
Friday at $50 o'clock a. m. Ignatius C.
Grubb, Esq. by direction of the court, re-
sumed his argument in support Of his motion
to quash the Indictment against George 5.
Hagany, Jr., alias Sim Jim. He recapitu-
lated his proposition of yesterday that at
common law, and under the constitu-
tion, and by immemorial usage in this
state, the accused was entitled
to have set forth in the indictment for being
common thief, the particular facts which
were necessary to constitute said otfense and
sufficiently describe 1t, 80 as to enable him to
know what he had to meet, what charges he
would have to answer, what witnesses he
would need and generally how to prepare his
defense.
He then proceeded to argue that the Leg
islature had no power to dispense with this
statement of the facts in the Indictment as it
had assumed to do in the common thief act
of April 17th, 1883, because such legis-
lative action WAS in violation
Of those fundamental rights of
the citizen, az guaranteed in the paramount
mandate of the constitution, which drew
around the person of the accused those
sacred safeguards of the common law which
protected HIM, his liberty and his property,
forever inviolate against even the supreme
legislative power Of the State
In support OF this proposition, he cited
numerous decisions of the supreme courts of
Indiana, Michigan, Maine and other states
He then examined the Maryland common
thief act" of 1864, from which this Delaware
act is copied and centended that the Mary
land act and the decision OF the Maryland
courts in support of it, were not appli-
cable to the Hagany case for various
reasons. Among these, that the MARYLAND
act had been confirmed and authorized by the
new constitution of Maryland, while its Della
ware imitation had not been, and il not war
ranted by our constitution.
He next declared that this act was as un-
necessary as it was unjust to the private citi-
zen, menacng to the principles of civil
liberty and to the institutions of II free people
IL was unnecessary. because ample common
law power existed, or could be provided by
statute. for preserving the public security by
compelling all dangerous persons of bad re-
pute to give security for good behavior or go
to jail. 1t was unjust to the citizen, and
menacing to the maxims and institutions Of
free people, because it sought to try the
citizen of free state without the
opportunity of knowing the precise
charges against him, without allowing him
or the counsel which our State and Federal
Constitutions guaranteed the guiltiest
offender, time or means to make a legal
defense and to convict him upon so-called
reputation-that is upon hearsay Of the
malicious calumniator or the ignor-
ant gossip, upon malignant slander
or Anticipated title tattle. He declared that
such an act was a disgrace to free State,
and would be reproach to the Legislature
which passed it, il it had not been enacted in
the midst of the general mass of the crowded
and hurried legislation of the last days Of the
session, without reasonable opportunity for
its due consideration.
Then, adverting to the title OF the act, he
concluded by saying SIT would have been
more suitable and appropriate to have made
it read thus IAN act to reverse the noblest
maxims Of civil liberty and of the common
law; to strike down the fundamental rights
of free people and revive and re-establish
the English star chamber and the Spanish
inquisitlpn; to supply the inetiiclency OF an
incompetent police Qt such shall ever EXIST,
and TO relieve the attorney general of the
labor and Inconvenience OF producing legal
evidence for the conviction of the friendless
stranger in our state when hs happens to be
innocent"
Mr.. Grubb closed at 10 o'clock, and the
court without hearing the attorney-Eeneral
proceeded with tie trial of the case OF Il. I'll.
McWhorter Il Co, vs.. Eli Seal.
Charles Brown was called for the plaintiffs,
and testified to the fact of MIR. Seal purchas.
pressing himself as being satisfied with the
manner in which it did its work
John L. WcWhorter, one of the plaintiffs,
testified that a month after Mr. Seal bought
the machine he was in their store one day,
and sand the mschine had done its work III q
satisfactory manner, and he had no objec-
tipns to it, but was sorry that he had agreed
to take it az he had an old one in his barn
which could be fixed up to answer his pur-
pose, and he did not intend to pay for thit
one
This closed the evidence in rebuttal, and
Eli Seal WAS called IN surrebuttal by Mr.
Nlelds, but upon objection beng made by
Mr. Lore, his testimony was n taken.
Harry Emmons, Erq then opened the
argument to the jury for the plaintiffs and
continued speaking until IL. 10 clock.
Benjamin Nlelds ESD, made the closing
argument for the defendant and spoke until
after ~ o'clock, when he was followed by
Charles b. Lore, Esq, who continued unit
~. As o'clock,
The jury were then charged by the court.
and retired ...
After the transaction of some minor busi-
ness, the court at l.30 O'Clock took a recess
until 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
Courl reopsued shortly before o'clock
Frica afternoon, and mmediately
after the jprors in the casa OF the suit to
recover for a reaper, OF II. McWhorter
va Xii Sssl, who had retired during the
morning session, came in, and in answer
to the question of Pfothonotary Maxwell,
said they had agreed upoe a verdict.
Tb. foreman said, "We find iu favor ol
the plaintiff, that he take thu msohine
aud SO " This singular verdict had
the Effect ci causing = burst OF laughter
from the members of the bar, in which
the court juintd.
When quiet had been restored the
chief Justice said, 1--WE cannot receive any
such verdict as that, you will have to re-.
tire again and find Il certain sum eithel
t0r the plaintiffs Jr the defendant The
jury iiled ont again and after an absencs
OF nearly one hour returned with a yer.
diet OF $lO5 90 III favor of the plaintiff,
and was discharged from further attend
sTcs at this term
Attorney General Gray opened srgu
ment in reply to Mr.. Grubb Oh his motor
TO quash the indictment in the oase o
Slim jim, who was arrested a few week,
since, and ia now in Jail under the pro
fessional thief act, passed by the las
Legislature. Mr.. Gray contended that
tbs act was constitutional and legal, and
was enforced in other states without any
question. He said that according to 1t,
| provisions professional tDisf found IL
this State was guilty Of misdemesnor
and il was prep0s.erous Tor the learned
counsel to argne that man must b.
! proved guilty of larceny, which is
felony before he could be convicted unde
its provisions. Mr.. Gray quoted largel,
from The act. AID from the constitution
Of this State and claimed that their pro
visions were strictly in accord.
He spoke about half sn hour, aud wa
followed by Mr.. Grubb, vino cited from