The daily gazette., 1883-05-19
REpRINrEp FROM vEsTeRDAY
SUPERIOR COURT.


The Case OF the singer Manufacturing
Company w. Murray In the Hands OF
the Jury.
The Superior Court was called at 10
o'clock this morning, with Chief Justice
Comegys and Associate Justices Houston
Wootten and Wales on the bench. The case
Of the Singer Manufacturing Company VS..
Isaac Murray was resumed.
Sarah Murray, wife OF defendant, was
called, but Mr.. Lore objected to the testl-
mony being admitted, on the ground that
she was incompetent, on account of being
his wife. After argument by counsel on
both sides the testimony was reiqc' ed.
The defense closed aud then the following
testimony was offered In rebuttal.
Jane Kelley recalled-Mr. Pritchett said
witness could have until the LIST day OF
August to redeem the machine; never asked
him to take the machine.
John 7. Meginnis, fecalled-When wit
ness went to Murray's, both Mr.. and Mrs,
Murray were there and he did not show any
book whatever to Mr.. Murray.
The evidence closed at this point.
Mr.. Emmons opened to the jury for the
plaintiff. The only issue being wherein the
legal ownership In this sewing machine
rests. Mr.. Emmons, in his review OF the
evidence, contended that It proved conclu
sively that the transaction was not sale,
but merely a hire of the machine. He
claimed that the plaintiffs knew they were
taking the machine Illegally and thereby
incurred the risk.
Mr. Lore asked the court to rule that the
hiring is no property; also as to the legality
OF the lease, which he claimed was such
one. Mr.. Lore, in support of these points,
quoted numerous authorities, some being
on cases exactly similar. In one the suit
was one where the direct legality of a sew
ing machine lease was tested, and the lease
held to be legal.
Mr.. Higgins asked the court to charge for
the defense where there is any doubt about
condition Il sale, there is property in the
vendue. Mr.. Higgins then addressed the
jury. He said that the amount was small,
but small cases receive as much consdera-
tion at the hands of our courts as large ones
The means employed In this case are such
as one can but look at in light more than
creditable. The defense accepted the ma
chine as Mrs. Krlley's; no notice was ever
given to Mrs. Murray. Mr.. Higgins dis
credited the testimony of the agent of the
company, and was perfectly willing to let
the jury say whether they would credit Mr..
Murray or Mr.. Meginnis He asked the
jury II it was reasonable 10 suppose that Mr.
Murray would take a machine that was
not Mrs. Kelley's when he had other GER
tain security. Mr.. Higgins made some
scathing marks about sewing machine
agents, and said it was a pity for them to
waste such capabilities upon forty dollar
sewing machine; nothing less than bound
less continent is large enough for
their field of labor Mr.. Higgins closed by
asking a verdict in his favor
Mr.. Lore closed for the plaintiff and an
swered the charge that they had excluded
Mrs. Murray by saying that no other lawyer
Of this bar could have attempted to place
the wife of defendant on the stand. 1t is
principal so wide and so reasonable thai
the court said it WAS proper one on whict
to exclude her testimony. The proof as u
the rent of the machine is positive and she
has told you that it was well worth the So
month. She paid it promptly fol
some time when hard times compelled
her TO stop and the machine
company did not distress her and she held II
for year after she stopped payment. What
did Mrs. Murray do when months rent
was due! She placed landlords warrant
upon her. They could not get the machine
by law and the subtle devices of the con
stable were introduced and by a trick they
obtained the machine Mr. Murray has Tor.
gotten what the agent said when he came tc
the door. The agent did make a demand
and he had no book in his hand when he
went there. Mr. Lore defended Mrs Kelley
from the criticism Of Mr.. Higgins that she
came here to swear with the sewing machine
Nompahys 1Als. lAtl'ty HtNGT sOiu Inal
machine and there never was word be
tween Mrs Murray and Mrs Kelley, but
Constable Pritehett did it all. Constable
Pritchetts testimony was utterly contradic.
tory and he confirmed Mrs. Kelley's testi-
mony on cross examination. Mr. Lore
.laimed that they had proved conclusively
every point in the case.
Chet Justice Comegys charged the jury at
l2.2O. 1t is the kind of action to reclaim a
property which owner claims to belong to
him. In order to entite the plaintiff to re
cover IN rtpleyln, the plaintiff must not
only prove he has the general or special
property but lie must prove he has the right
TO the exclusive, immediate possession of the
property. Then there must be a actual de-
mand for the property. Though the right
was in the company, the possession was ac-
tually in Mrs. Kelley. BY this right the
company had a claim above anybody else.
There may be conditional sales. Although
conditional sates may be treated as valid, it
was not sold as a risk against any person
having mortgage claim against it, The
court will authorize the jury to so regulate
their verdict that no innocent person will
suffer BY the fraudulent act of the vender
At II 80 the case was given to the jury
Alter the jury retired the court adjourned
until this afternoon at 3 O'clock.