Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1883-12-13

mason work on row of houses that James
| II. Aaron was erecting on Stroud street.
Browntown. He was certoin that the work
work WAS donein December, from the fact OF
the weather being extremely cold.
George Lewis testified that he is a general
superintendent of the brick yard of Samuel
McClary, and furnished the bricks for these
houses the first load WAS sent about the
middle of December, 1881.
Nelson Morris testified that he furnished
the stone for the cellar walls of these houses
he hauled them to the place in December,
| 1881. On cross examination, he said that he
might have commenced to haul the stone in
November, but was positive he did not finish
until December.
George H. Mccall, clerk employed by
| Charles Warner & Co.. testified that the firm
furnished the sand and lime for these build
| ings, the first of which was sent in December
1881.
James II. Aaron was called to the stand,
and after being sworn testified that he con-
structed the houses on Stroud street, Brown
town they were not commenced until some
time in November, 1881, and the cellar walls
were built in December by Michael Meaney
this hardware was not purchased for these
houses.
Mr. Nieds offered to show by the bills Of
Duncan Bros. that they had picked out from
these bills certain items, on which they had
obtained this lien, and would also show that
the items ON these bills differed from the
| amount in suit.
This was opposed by Mr.. Hoffecker, and a
spirited discussion ensued, lasting some
| time, after which the witness resumed, and
said he WAS confident that he had not pur-
chased any hardware for these houses until
February, 1882. as he had no use for it until
| then. AT l o'clock court adjourned until
O'Clock i'll the afternoon.
AS soon as court reopened in the
afternoon, Thomas Davis, Esq, moved
judgment be entered against Bell g.
Taylor in the suit Of John A. Wilson
against that firm. As there was no oppo-
sition the motion was granted.
The names of the jurors were then
| called, and the consideration of the
mechanics lien case Of Duncan Bros. vs..
James II. Aaron was again taken up. Mr..
| Nields recalled the defendant who had
4 not finished his testimony when the
court adjourned at noon.
| He was subjected to q strict oross-
examination by Mr.. Hofiecker, during
which he said that he had not begun the
erection of the Browntown houses
until December 1881; he aid not complete
these houses, and lett this city for a short
time in 1882 after his return hs called
on Duncan Bros, but could not recollect
| what they conversed about. He thought
| the conversation was about an amount,
aud he recolleoted offering to give the
| firm note for the debt, which they
refused to take unless 1t was endorsed by
Samuel McClary, but he could not
| recollect how much the debt was, or VIII at
| it was for. He admitted that he had
purchased hardware from Duncan Bros,
siter his return, but was positive that no
hardware was bought for the Browntown
houses, except what was purchased in
| February 1882.
Mr.. Nields offered in evidence two re-
leases, signed by Duncan Brothers, and
the court said it Mr.. Hoffeoker did not
| object they could be read. Mr.. Hotfecker
said there would not be any objection to
their being read and admitted as evi
denoe. One of these documents is dated
February 18th, 1882, and agrees in con-
sideration OF 81 paid to them, by James
| Ii. Aaron, to waive all claims which they
held at that date against three of the
houses at Stroud and Wright streets.
The other document, which is dated
March 4th, 1882, is worded the same, and
| agrees for like consideration to release
all claims held by the firm against the
|
were drawn up by Mr.. Hotfecker, who was
at the time the attorney OF James IL Aaron,
and were executed with the object OF
allowing him TO dispose of the properties
When Mr.. Nields finished reading these
papers, Mr., HOtfeoker said he wished it
understood that they were only to be re-
csived as releases of the claims which the
firm had against James I'll. Aaron at the
time they were executed, which was
s57 So, leaving $12979 still due. This
was opposed Sy MIR. Nields, who said
these waivers covered all the claims held
by Duncan Bros. against this property,
but the court without deciding the point,
ordered the examination of witnesses to
be continued.
Frank b. Carpenter was called, and
identified the handwriting Of Duncan
Bros. to four receipts, aggresating $245,
aud showing that James Ii. Aaron mad
paid them that amount in four payments,
made between January 25th and May
9th, 1882
Samuel McClary testified that he is the
proprietor of a brick yard, and in Decem
Ter, 1881, furnished bricks for the con
| struotion of these houses in Browntown,
and knew they were not under roof until
some time in February, 1882. When the
witness bought the houses from Aaron,
June LIST, 1882, there were NO claims
againat them; he had the records ex-
amined and nothing WAS found on the
books; the witness knew that all the
creditors had signed releases, or he would
not have had anything to do with the
houses. IL
Mr.. Hoffecker cross ex smined this wit
ness at length, and several of the ques-
tions were objected to by Mr.. Nields and
Withdrawn. This closed the testimony
tor the defendant, and Mr.. Nields said
he would rest his case.
Frederic Robinson was called in re
buttal and testified that he has peen in
the office of the city engineer aud sur.
veyor for the past five years, and now
holds the position of chief engineer in
September, 1881, he was called upon by
MIR. Aaron to furnish the lines for seven
houses which he intended building at
Wright and Stroud streets, Browntown,
and the lines were laid on the 2lst OF that
month.
Walter Tatnall testified to the fact OF
having sold lumber to James H. Aaron in
August, 1881, that was hauled by hts
direction to Browntown.
He wss cross examined by Mr.. Nields,
and said that he did not go with the
wagons to see where they delivered the
lumber, but he gave them the address at
Browntown furnished by Aaron, and was
positive they took IL there he could not
be mistaken about the time, and was
certain the lumber was bought in August.
Mr. Hoffecker said that he had no more
witnesses to call, and Mr.. Nields stated
that he wished to recall James II. Aaron
in surre5uttsl, but upon objection being
made by Mr.. Haffecker he was SUSTAINED
by the court, and made his opening argu
ment to the jury. He began by explain
ing the provisions of the mechanics lier
law, and stated that it was enacted FOL
the express purpose of meeting just such
cases as this. He denied that the re-
lsases were given in full settlement, and
said they were only intended to provide
for part OF the bill, and left 1929 79 still
standing. His clients were not children,
and did not suppose that they could eAt
a cake and have it afterwards they were
willing to stand by the terms of these
papers, and wanted the other side to dt
the same.
He spoke about % minutes and ther
,, Mr.. Nields opened HE argument to the
court in support of his position, tha
, these releases covered all the indebted
ness on the BrOwntown houses. After ht
had spoken short time he was inter
, rupted by the court, who informed hin
that they did not care to listen to tn,
argument. This was resented by Mr.