The daily gazette., 1883-05-19
/, SATURDAY, MAY 10, 1888.
supeRIoR COURT.
Verdict for the Defendant in the Sewing
Machine Case-State vs. Bratton.

Machine Case-State vs.. BrattOn.
The jury in the case of the Singer Manu-
facvuring Company VS.. Isaac Murray came
in about 2 p. m. yesterday, with a verdict
of S4l.6rfor the defendant.
The case of the State of Pelaware VS..
Thomas Bratton ct al was put upon trial.
Attorney General Gray for the State and
Lore and Emmons for defendants. The Jury
wae drawn from the second panel, being It's
FIRST day in court. After drawing the Jury
short time was allowed to settle a case,
Mr.. Higgins announced that the case of
Henry Shimp VS.. Seidel, Hastings & Co. had
been settled by giving verdict for plaintiff
amounting to S27l.45.
The case OF State OF Delaware VS.. Thomas
Bratton ct. al. resumed. The case Is one of
the genuineness OF signature to a Collec.
tors bond. In 1876 judgment was given on
a Collectors bond against William L. Rey-
nolds, Thomas Bratton, Robert johnson
and Cyrus Patton for $4,000. William L.
Reynolds denies the signature as his and
asks to have the judgment opened.
Samuel I. Bouchelle, one of the Witnesses
ON the bond was sworn. The witness said
the name on the bond appearing as his, was
to the best OF his knowledge and belief not
written by himself. The other names on the
bold were not placed there in his presence.
One OF the reasons witness gave that the
name was not his, was that the final "e' in
his last name was omitted.
Cross-examination-W Witness would not
swear that he always placed the final "e" to
his name. He told Nathaniel Williams the
main reason for believing that the name
was not written by himself was that he was
out OF town at the time the bond was made,
being sick at his mothers house in NC
Donough, Del.
James Chambers testified to having writ
ten his name on the bond as witness to
Thomas Bratton's signature, it being the
only one there at the time of his signing.
Nothing new was ELECTED on cross-exami-
nation.
William T. Bratton testified that his name
on the bond was not his signature. On
cross-examination witness said he was the
son of Thomas Bratton, and brother-in-aw
OF William L, Reynolds. James Chambers,
the previous witness, was employed at
Thomas Bratton's. Witness had said he had
no knowledge fever witnessing any paper.
Another paper was shown the witness and
lie denied his signature to it, hut upon
rigid questioning by Mr.. Gray admitted that
he might have signed it, and that it re-
sembled his writing.
Jacob Hill testified to knowing William
l. Reynolds 33 years, and to seeing him
write frequently; and that the writing ON
Reynolds.
On cross. examination he said he had not
seen him write so very often and could not
say when and where he saw him write.
William L. Reynolds was sworn, but Mr..
Gray objected 10 the witness testifying, as
he was au interested party and could
not under the law testify. Mr.. Lore replied
that as the witness had been sworn
the objection came too late. The Court
ruled it had not and then Mr.. Lore claimed
that under the act of 1881 allowing inter
ested parties to testify, the witness was en-
titled to proceed. Mr.. Gray replied that
that act did not apply to cases then pending
as he asserted this one was. Mr.. Lore
claimed that the issue was an entirely new
case and had been raised since the passage
of the act. After some argument by coun-
sci it was decided to allow authorities to be
given this morning and hear argument on
the question.
Levi q. Bird, Esq, presented the return
OF the commissioner, W. s. Hayes, Esq, in
the divorce case of Porter VS.. Porter, in
favor OF granting an absolute divorce.
Adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning.