The daily gazette., 1883-02-21
RseRlMTgo FAoM YEsrERpAY
INTERESTING cAsEs.
Important Matters Before the Chan
ceilor Yesterday and To-day.

Z
Important Matters Before the Chan
ceilor Yesterday and To-day.
In the Court of Chanccry yesterday AFTER
noon Chancellor Salisbury heard argument
In the matter OF the application Of the Har-
Ian q Hollingsworth Company for an order
restraining Samuel D. Paschall from build
ing whaEf now In construction along the
'front.' Of bis property opposite the yards Of
the II. & H. Co. Messrs. Bates aud Har-
rington represented the plaintiff and Benja'
min Nlelds, Esa., appeared on behalf Of MIR.
PaschaIl. J. Fl. Hofecker, Esq, was
present fer the Beard of Trade, which has
bill In course Of preparation for
presentation TO the Legislature,
asserted by the defendant that j. t. Cause,
to obtain legislation against the interests Of
Mr. Paschall through the Board Of Trade. !"
After lengthy argument by counsel IL
was mutually agreed that the work Of driv-
ing piles should cease and remain suspended
until final decision was made, Mr.. Hof-
fecker promising that the Board of Trade
bill should not be presented at Dover until
the matter was settled. The pleadings
Of the counsel will be printed and forwarded
70 the Chancellor at Dover on Monday next
THIS MORNINGS SESSION.
The Court of Chancery was in session
this morning. Application was made by
Charles Rowland, administrator Of Charles
Weldin, deceased, VS.. B. Frank Perkins,
surviving partner Of the firm Of the firm Of
Perkins & Weldie, for a Dill of account.
Benjamin Nields, Esq, solicitor for com
plainant, asked that the bill be dismissed
aud costs paid by the complainant. Charles
b. Lore, Esq., for the respondent, opposed
the dismissal. The Chancellor ordered the
bill dismissed, the costs to be paid by the
complainant.
Mr.. Nields made application for the ad-
mission Of Tilghman johnson, Esq, as q
Solicitor In Chancery. The Chancellor ap-
pointed Messrs. Higgins and Gray as q com
mittee to examine the applicant. Mr..
Nields suggested TO the court that Mr..
johnson be examined by the Examining
Committee Ofthe Bar Association, stating that
the Superior Court had done away with the
old method Of examining and always left
the examination Of candidates TO the Bar
Association. TIE applicant was referred as
suggested by Mr.. Nields.
Mr.. Nields, as trustee, made a return Of
the sale of the Bernard McCAnn estate on
Tatnall street near Seventh. He stated thai
In February, 1882, he had offered the prop
erty at public sale, as instructed by tn,
court, but as 1t had only been bid to 81 300
which was several hundred dollars less thar
the appraisers price, he had withdrawn It
and had offered 1t again on February
Sd, last, at public sale, when Georgt
W. Pearson had become the purchaser
for $l,T50, Immediately entering bono
for that amount, in compliance with th'
order of the court. This amount, Mr.
Neilds thought, was too small and so stated
10 Mr.. Pierson, aud further said that b.
would not close the sale but ask the opinion
Of the court. Shortly before the cour
commenced to-day, George A. Capelle haG
offered the trustee 81 300 Tor the property
Mr.. Pierson signined HIS willingness to pa,
that amount also. Mr.. Capelle wa
seen again, when he immediatel
agreed to give 81 800. For this 'reasol
Mr.. Nields asked the opinion of the cour
upon the case, and whether II might do L
allow either one Of the parties to take tn
property, admitting that it was contrary L
the regular rules and proceedings.
The court decided, in order that the rule
might be uniform and the practice estah
lished followed, to have the sale continued
stating that the court could not recognize
private sale, which this undoubtedly was.
The Chancellor subsequently decided
however, that II Mr.. Pierson would agree I
give 81 800, the court would make the orde
closing the sale, as the bid Of 81 ,750 was th
only one made on the day of the sale.
Mr.. Pierson, who was in the court room
was consulted, and after some talk, made
statement declaring that he would give n
more than what he had bid.
Mr. Nields after consulting Mr. Pierso
again stated that the gentleman had dt
cided 10 give 81 800. This provoked tn
Court and 1t forthwith decided that th
property should again be put up at sale an
that 1t should be returned as either sold 9
unsold.