The daily gazette., 1883-01-06
THE REYpoLD CASE!
Continuation Of Yesterdays Proceedings
several Witnesses Called.


canal came from the three rivers mentioned
Elk, sassafras and Susquehanna; peaches,
In small quantities have come from other
places, but never knew them 10 be shipped
on boats Of defendant; began to ship
peaches in 1868.
Philip r. Clark, sworn-Have been agent
for Eastern Shore Steamboat Company OF
Baltimore, since 1867; have been In the busI-
ness since l8a9 except two years Anthony
Reybold applied TO me In 1861 TO charter a
boat to run on his line, or rather instructed
me, ss was under his employ, TO apply to
Mr.. Groves; Groves offered one class of
boats at 500 day and another class at $75;
the difference in class was according to the
size OF the boat no boat was chartered ; It
was the year the Whilldin was seized BY
the government
d0hn ID. Ruoff, sworn-Was Mr.. Reybold's
agent, in 1857, Of the Union Steamboat
Company; duties called me to Philadelphia; /;
know Mr.. Groves Mr.. Groves was the agent
in Philadelphia Of the defendant company,
and acted for It; the New York boats
brought freight, that Is peaches, out of the
Sassafras river.
Mr.. Bird asked II witness, as agent of the
Union line, had endeavored 10 prevent the
New York boats from stopping at the wharfs
upon these three rivers.
Mr.. Gray objected on the ground that the
Union line was not party to the issue.
Objection sustained and question ruled
out.
Mr.. Bayard then questioned the witness
as to who were the officers and agents OF
the Union line, Of which Barney Reybold
was president. The agents, witness said,
got their orders from Barney Reybold.
Mr.. Bird asked how witness knowledge
OF Mr.. Groves as agent of the defendant
company was derived. Witness stated he
had obtained it from captains of boats dur
ing the peach season, and added that the
Ericsson line had tried to run off the Union
line.
Captain A. L. Colmary, sworn-Live in
Baltimore; was In employ of Mr.. Reybold
In 1858; in 1859 ran the Whilldin; did so
until 1861; route included wharves ON Elk
and Sassairas rivers; made two trips week
on the SusquehaHna river; commenced in
1861 as soon as navigation was opened until
April 81, 1851; boat was then seized and
considered In the service of the United
states; was not on the route through the
canal after 1861.
Witness told how he was down In Hamp-
ton Roads when the Merrimac came out,
and, In reply TO question of Senator
bayard, laughingly said: Eyes, remem-
Der that" The captain then narrated the
attempt of Mr.. keybold to secure a boat
after the Whilldin had been seized
ii. l.. Cav, Jr., sworn: Live in Philadel-
phia; am director In the defendant COM
pany, and have been for nearly year; and
also director In the Baltimore and Phila-
delphia Steamboat Company for the same
time; in both companies took the place of
Robert M. Lewis; have been assistant secre-
tary since 1877, and assistant treasurer since
1880: my father is secretary and treasurer
of defendant company; he Is i'll and unable
to attend to business, and has not forse
years; attend to his business, he has not
been at the company's office for several
years; the companies have no other acting
secretary and treasurer besides myself; the
officers of the defendant In 1851 were:
President, Geo. Cadualades; Secretary and
Treasurer, II. l.. Cav, Sr, the same were
officers of the Baltimore and Philadelphia
Steamboat Company.
The question as to the officers OF the last
named company was objected to by Mr.
Gray, but not until the witness had replied.
Senator Bayard explained that the only
reason of objection was that the questioning
concerning the Baltimore and Philadelphia
Company was apt 10 create confusion. The
objection was finally withdrawn.
The witness then continued and gave the
names of the directors of the defendant COM
pany and the Baltimore Company, the
difference being that there was one man on
each board not in the other. Both boards
met at the same place usually, and both
held their annual meetings in Baltimore at
the same place and time.
The examination and cross-examination
of IL c witness continued Until the time of
Several of the jurymen requested to have
court adjourn until Monday, but that was
opposed by counsel, and 10 O'Clock this
morning fixed for the next session.
THIS MORNINGS SESSION.
Mr.. Hedrick, previously sworn, was re-
called, and questioned by Mr.. Bird as to
whether he, the witness, had heard Mr..
Smithers, who testified on Thursday. He
was asked If he could explain certain
statement of Mr. Smithers.
Mr.. Gray objected on the ground that the
plaintiff could not bring witness TO con-
tradict their own witness, and a witness
could not be called TO them for cross ex-
Mr.. Bird stated that all he wanted to find
was out certain points that Mr.. Smithers was
not apt to be so familiar with, inasmuch as
the witness had been in the employ of the
canal company much longer.
The question was ruled out on the ground
that the plaintiff could not call one of its
own witnesses for cross-eXamination.
Mr.. Smithers was then recalled, and his
examination continued concerning the ship
ment of peaches through the canal. The
explanation was satisfactory to both parties,
and they laughingly expressed themselves SO.
Tho witness then stated that he wanted to
make an explanation, inasmueh as the
papers did not publish his testimony before
as he had given 1t. Mr.. Bird replied that,
"wlth all due respect to the reporters, the
newspapers did not always get things right.
The case did not depend upon the testimony
rs given by the papers. II We did we would
make pretty mess of this case"
The matter which caused the confusion
among the lawyers themselves was the one
the papers were credited with getting wrong
The question put to Mr.. Smitners was
whether entrees in the books stating that
peaches as coming from the Sassafras river
might not include peaches which came
from other rivers and by other boats.
The explanation was that, during slack
season, when there was not many peaches
being shipped, boats coming out of other
rivers would transfer their cargoes to other
boats passing through the canal. 1t was
often done as matter of economy. Trans
fers were often made from the Philadelphia
to the New York boats, and Vice gersd.
Mr. Hedrick was again called and further
explained the transfer of peaches from ore
boat to another, etc.
Mr.. Bradford said his side now offered to
put In evidence the contract between the
Baltimore and Philadelphia Transportation
Company and the plaintiff His proposition
was to show that, inasmuch as the officers