Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1883-12-14
FIFTH EDITION.
sUPRHlOR COURT.


Close Of the Beopofe SAAO-V0e
Lists Net Y~s sAo9Anced.
Superior Court opened Ut . O'Clock
this morning, bus no Ebusiness was
transacted until Lao, when I. G. Grubb,
Esq, resumed his argument on he mo-
ton 10 quash the indictment in the
case Of :" Slim jim"
He conteDded that our Legislature
can have no power to enact law that
dispensss with the definition Of often.
ses A common thief means one who
is guilty of number Of larcenies, and
AZ the indictment charges this man
with being common thief, but does
not specify what those larcenies are or
when they were committed. 1t must
fall.
He cited q number OF authorities
bea ring on the case, and closed his very
able argument At 10 o'clock, when the
case Of Y. H. Nc w horter & Go. vs.. Eli
Seal was resumed.
Charles Brown WAS sworn and testi-
fed that he was employed by Mr.. Nc.
Whorter when Mr.. Seal bought tho ma
chine.
John r. McWhOrter WAS sworn, and
testi fed that he heard I'll Seal say that
he had no objection 10 the machine, but
az he had an old one In the barn tina,
could be liked up, he did not want IT,
Heard him say that he did not intend
to pay for the machine, and II the firm
wanted to know anything about his
reputation they could 70 ~ Chadd's
Ford.
Mr. Lore said he was done, and
would not call any more witnesses, and
Mr.. Nields recalled Ell Seeds In sur.
rebuttal.
| He asked the witness but one queS-
ton, which was objected 10 by Mr.
Lore, and upon the objection being sus.
tained by the Court, he was with
drawn.
Harry Emmons, ESD. made the
opening argument for the plaintiff, ana
spoke about forty-tive minutes.
He was followed by Benjamin Nields,
ESD, who made the closing argument
for the defendant.
| He commended that there was no
ground tor this action, a. the defendant
had merely promised to give his note
for the machine, in the ensuing Sep
TENDER.
This is a suit for debt, but no debt had
been proven, a. the defendant had only
taken the machine on trial. with
promise that If 1t was satisfactory he
would keep it. and in the ensuing Sep
TENDER give his note ut fonrtes" months
in payment.
The machine did not do what Mr.
Nc W horter claimed 1t would do, and
he refused TO give his note for 1t, and
notified the Arm that 1t WAS In his barn
and they could come and get 1t.
He concluded At IL 10 O'Clock and
was followed by Charles b. Lore, Ed
who said that all the evidence tend,d
to show that Mr. Seal had not only
bought the machine, but he had used ii
10 long as he wanted 10 cut his wheat
and that of his brothers, aud
then refuses to pay for 1t, and tells
the men he bought II from to come and
take away The only reason Mr.. Seal
alleged tor not paying for 1t was, that
he ought not to have bought 1t, az be
had GU old machine that would answer
his purpose
Mr.. Lore said this care reminded
him of story he had heard about Henry
Ward Beecher, after the Rnit which lie
passed through few years ago, that
cost hipr t 8 proceeds OF at least hun
dred lectures.
Some one asked him how he liked
kissing, an' h. replied that he liked
kissing well enough, but he didn't like
paying for il, and that in just the way
with Mr.. sca /; be likes the machine
well enough, and he likes to have biz
wheat cut with II, but Ia don't Ike TO
pay for 1t.
lie concluded his able and eloquent
argument at l24j o'clock, when tie
Ijury were charged and retired.
: Several motions was disposed VI be
; fore Court took the noon recess.
The Lists were brought over TINS
, morning, ana the fact, which soon "
came known, had the effect OF drawing
a number I'll l'trn,uS to theCourt HOUSE
in expectation tuat they would he sen
fenced tiu, norm ng. They were, how
ever, doouri 10 dlsappointm ~ IN
action was taken IN the case.