The daily gazette., 1883-05-18
SUPERIOR COURT.
Verdict for PlaInsif in smalIey VS. Pritch-
ard-A Replevin Suit for sewing Ma
chine.

Verdict for PlaInS,d q in smalIey VS. Pritch
ard-A RepIevin Suit for a sewing Ma
chine.
After the conVeniug Of the afternoon ses
sion of the Superior Court yesterday, Henr,
H. Pennington, Esq, made the closing ad
dress to the jury in the case of Smalley, VS.
Pritchard. Mr.. Pennington's address oceu-
pied about 30 minutes and was clear, forei-
BILE and able. Chief Justice Comegys
charged the jury. The Chief Justice in his
charge clearly explained the law in the case
OF usury. The case was given to the jury at
O'Clock.
Alter some difficulty among counsel tbe
case OF Singer Manufacturing Company VS..
Isaac Murray. Lore and Emmous for
plaintiff and Anthony Higgins, ESQ.,, for
the defense.
A jury was drawn at 4.1O.
Charles b. Lore, Esq, for the plaintiff,
stated that the case was a replevin OF a
sewing machine. Mr.. Lore said that Mrs.
Jane Kelley received a sewing machine
from the Singer Manufacturing Company.
at rent OF e3 month, on the condition
that II she paid her rent on the machine
regularly for certain period of time the
| machine was TO be hers. Some time before
the date arrived Mrs. Kelley became behind
In her house rent and Mr.. Murray seized the
| machine for rent.
Jane Kelley, sworn-Received the ma
chine from Mr. Wilson, agent of the Singer
Company. The machine went to Mr.. Muir
rays from my house. 1t belonged to the
company at The time 1t went to Mr.. Muir
ray. There was written lease between
witness and the Sewing Machine Company.
Samuel Speakman, sworn-Testified to
lease being mislaid. 1t was in my custody
at the time, and have made diligent search
for the lease.
On eross-examination the witness said he
had taken 1t to Mr.. Lore but had no recol
lection of taking it away from there.
Mr. Lore stated that Mr. Emmons and
himself had made diligent search amongst
al Their papers but failed TO fiud the lease,
The court accepted the explanation and the
examination of Mrs. Kelley was resumed.
She said the machine wa sent to Murray's
as security for rent; II this had not been
done her furniture woull have been sold.
Cross examination: The contract price of
the machine was $50, upon which an was
paid except Sl2. Tue house. was rented from
Isaac Murray The machiue was not sold
TO Isaac Murray aud no attempt was made
to do it; there were $l3 in money pai1 Mr.
Frltchett ana the machine was given as Sc
curly Tor $50 II witness aid not have a
copy of the lease anI was not to own the
machine until the rent had been paid regu-
larly for the entire time. The conversation
about the machine was with Mr.. Pritchett
and at witnesses house; did not tell Mr.
Pritchett the machine was hers.
Some receipts were then identified and
offered in evidence. The witnesses testi.
mony was frequently interrupted by object
ions of counsel. John T. Megnuis sworn
Testified to makiDga demand upon Mr. and
Mrs. Murray for the machine aud then re-
tusing to give 1t up. Witness stated to them
that the machine was the property of Mrs.
Kelley.
On cross-examination, witness said he was
a collector of the company: did not ask Mrs.
Murray for the remaining money due and
was not willing to accept it. The time of
maxi the demand was not remembered by
witness.
Samuel Speakman re-cAlled-It was at
my direction the demand was made.
The plaintiff at this point rested his case.
Mr.. Higgins stated in his opening that he |
would prove there had been no tortious
taking and Mr.. Murray claimed the whole
title in the machine. The machine was sold
by Mrs. Kelley to Mr.. Murray allowing $40
and taking S13 in cash, making the entire
rent If this was not a fact there was
clearly fraud with the sewing machine com
psny. There has not been statutory or
tortious taking by reason of a demand and
refusal. The attorney said the greater part
/
lion of the plaintiffs. :.
Isaac Murray, the defendant, sworn.
Claimed the sewing machine as the property
Of his wife. L stifed to the rent being due
and and being placed in Constable Pritchetts
hands ror collection Mrs. Kelley offered
,he sewing maching in part payment of the
-ent. TIE house in which Mrs. Kelley lived
belonged to witness wife. Witness testi-
led to agent coming to his house and stat
ng that there was machine there belong
ng to the Singer Company upon which he
aid there were $12 due. He came a second
lime and offered to settle for the machine
or $40 There was no demand made upon
witness for the machine.
at this point the jury in the case of
'malley VS.. Pritchard entered court and an
lounced verdict in favor of the plaintiff
to Sl66,21.
j. L. Vallandigham, ESQ.,, for the de-
ense made motion for new trial.
Case resumed, Mr.. Murray still on the
tand.
Cross COMMUNICATIONS Pritchett
Idvised witness to allow the Singer Com
,any to levy on the machine and then settle
he question of property in the courts.
Mrs. Kelley said the machine belonged to
Ter and was perfectly willing to allow it to
70 If she could REDEEM it inside of three
months. Witness did not remember the ap-
Of the man who claimed to be the | ,
gent of the Singer Company.
W. w. Pritchett, sworn-Testified to MAX
ng the levy against Mrs. Kelley and the ,
arious payments which had been made
he machine was given in part payment of
ent. She had frequently tried TO induce
ne to get Mrs. Murray to purchase It.
Cross-examination: Mrs. Kelley said it
'as her machine. Witness then said that
FRS, Kelley told him she had it on lease;had
howed IT to him and he had read It, 1t was
ot given as pledge and Mrs. Kelley had
Did witness she had never expected to re-
eem it.
The court at this point adjourned until
mis- morning at 10 O'Clock.