The daily gazette., 1883-05-16
SUPERIOR COURT.

| surprising termination Of the Case OF
Dempsey vs.. MalOney's Administrator
Chicken Thieves acknowledgements
To-day.
The hearing of the cause of Sarah Dempsy
VS.. Bridget Maloney's Administrator was re-
sumed at the afternoon session of yester-
days Superior Court.
Margaret Churnside corroborated the tes-
timony of the previous witnesses.
| j. Earnest Smith, treasurer of the Will
mington Savings Fund, identified a check
amounting to $530.98 as one drawn by
Sarah Dempsy in favor of Bridget Maloney.
| George D. Armstrong, cashier of the First
National Bank, identified the check as one
charged against the Wilmington Savings
Fund. The deeds of conveyance of the
property were then admitted in evidence
The plaintiffs at this point rested their case
and Mr.. Spruance, on the part of the de-
fendant, asked for a non-suit OIL the ground
that married woman, though able to make
contract against her own property, could
not, under statute of 1873, make contract
under other other circumstances. In this
case she did not bold any property at the
time of borrowing the money and really
there was nothing against which the debt
held and there had been nothing
for six years Mr.. Spruance read
the statue and spoke at some length in sup
port of his motion, claiming that it was not
her sole and separate property.
Mr.. Bird argued eloquently and at some
length that Bridget Maloney did have
the power He claimed that the law of
1873 does not prevent the woman from bor-
rowing the money; If 1t were SO the debt
held good after the property came into her
possession. Again, the debt was valid by
the fact of her admitting 1t during the year
and one-half absence of her husba d, and at
the time of her death If the statute
gave her the power to receive the
money, it certainly gave Sarah
Dempsy power to sue for It. She did
borrow it and this is legal claim even
under the husband
Mr.. Spruance, in reply, claimed that the
property and the money merged IN her hus-
band. The fact of the money going toward
the payment of the property certainly made
Mrs. Maloney lose all ownership thereon.
Mr.. Spruance continued his argument at
considerable length in support of his posi-
ton. The opinion of the CourC was re-
served until this morning.
The defence offered no evidence and Wal
ter 8. Hayes, Esq, opened for the plaintiff
by an exhaustive review of the evidence,
commenting upon it a considerable length.
He said the parties were persons not accus-
toned to loan large sums of money and did
not think bond or note was a necessity.
The loan was legal and it was but question
of proof And that had been overwhemingID
favor of the plaintiff. The case has not been
assaied ON its merits. Mr.. Hayes argument
was clear, logical and of much force. Mr..
Spruance then addressed the jury. He COM
mented Oh the stranganess of person in the
station of Mrs. Dempsey loaning money with
out some acknowledgment. The singular
fact of none of the testimony for the plain
tiff showing where Patrick Maloney ever
knew of the loan. In the middle of Mr..
Spruance's argument Mr.. Bird arose and
announced that the case had been compro-
missed. This announcement was a complete
surprise. The court instructed the jury TO
give verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of
$500, which was Immediately done.
George Burton and Nathaniel Fisher,
convicted last week of the larceny
of IL chickens, were sentenced to
receive one months imprisonment, ten lashes
and pay 500 restitution money and costs
of prosecution.
On motion of Levi e. Bird, Esq, s. Rod
man Smith was appointed commissioner In
the divorce case Of Massey VS.. Massey.
The jury were, at $50 p M, discharged
until Thursday morning at 10 O'Clock.
To-day was set apart for the hearing of
the argument list.
The court at 5.45 adjourned until this
morning at 10 O'Clock.