Daily Republican., 1883-11-27
SU1fRIOR COURT.
yExTsWDAY AFTEDuOONN Pro.
CEEJp1xN,1LTRE = Y1U9r CASE
NOT YET COHCLU0ED.

NOT YET CoKCLU0ED.
The sfsernoon sesslon OF Superior
Court oPeued precisely n ) o'clock Nor
dsy, AMI the trial OF tho cas
Of Thonas T. T. Clark vs. WI
liam Bsnks and John AsOly was Re
1Elmer W. Clark, Who was on IN
stapd when Court adtsurned ct noon
was recalled, and Mr.. Hpruauce a&ket
him :" what was the condition of th'
wheat crops ON the fa1ms In the neigh
borhood that year when Mr.. Coope
objected. and said the question We
Intended for the ssme purpose ~ thos
objected to at tke morning session
Afte an argument lasting full,
hal. an hour, the Court ruled that N,
question wa ivadmissable, and Mr.
Spraance asked the Court to nots his
exceptions.
In answer to further questions the
witness stated that the field WAS we'll
malured and 'he crop we'll put In; in
ina fair season tho yield should have
been not less than twenty-five to thirty
bushels to tho acre. The cows and
sheep belonging IN Mr.. Banks were
psstured on the wheat, and In the es
iimation Of the wi,ness damaged It al
least one half.
The witness thought the crop, If 1t
had been allowed TO mature, would
have brought about $3.50. Mr.. Cooper
objected TO this statement going h tho
Jury, and the Court said tho witness
should state what he would have been
willing to give for the crop az 1t stood
when 1t was destroyed, and he answered
sbout so an acre, or el6O for the field.
Mr.. Cooper cross-examined the wit.
ness at length, and several of bis ,ques-
tons were objected TO by Mr. Spruance.
Thomas T. T. Clark testified that he
rented the place At an annual rental Of
$50 there were 100 acres in the farm !;
the sixteen acres where be planted the
wheat was good ground, and we'll ma.
burtd the crop was put In as good as
possible. In anawer to Mr.. Spruance
The witness Said he valued the wheat 1T
Is an acre when 1t was ploughed up !;
|fit had been allowed 10 mature he
thought it would have yielded not less
han twenty -fve bushels to the acre.
On CROSS examination he said thatthe
rent had not been reduced from Se0O to
75O on condition of his surrendering
bis right to the sixteen. acre field there
vas nothing said when he rented the
place about restricting the tillage.
Mr.. Cooper asked the witness what
be paid for the held Of wheat In the
round when he bought 1t at the ad.
illustrators sale, but upon Mr.Spsuance
Directing the question was over0lsd by
be Court. The witness could not recol.
ect Mr.. Banks telling him, that accord
ng to the lease he had no right 10 SOW
le field In wheat, neither could he re-
ollect saying TO Mr.. Banks that he
kpew 1t was not according TO the lease,
but that he had nothing to show ITO the
Jntrary.
Frank Moody testified that he is a |
On Of tn. late John Moody, and had
wed on the farm With his father two
ears removed from 1t In March 1883 !; |
Us father died last June he reaollect-
the fact of cattle and sheep being
urued into the wheat field ;"the cattle |
tlvnged TO b II father and Mr.. Banks
bnily heard Mr.. Banks tell hisfathe,
hat he intended 10 plough up the field.
ndte Lad a. well pasture ON itwhile |
could.
The field was afterwards ploughed up |
y order Of Mr.. Banks the wit0ess did |
ot know what hts father had said to
dr Banks, AZ he was not present when
told him to plough it. The. wheat
las pretty we'll cut down wben the /
eId was plOughed i; Mr.. Banks was
resent at the ploughing, and took the
tness' plough 70 try II, but afterwards
ok another plough and went around
Fvrra times.
The field was afterwards planted in
prn, and yielded good crop.
Cross-examined by Mr.. Cooper
here was considerable blue grass in
be field at least three fourths ofit.
David Mccoy testified that he knows
the farm, and II Is very good land.
he witness had been told by Mr..
anks that he bad gone on the farm
bout March, and In talking abcut the
lage with Clark, the latter had told
I'D that he had . notion 70 put the
cid in wheat again, and Banks said
hat he replied, "i don't know but
hat would" This WAS the last wit
~ called by Mr.. Sprusnce for the
aintitt, and Mr.. Cooper asked the in
qlgence of the Court for few inmates
nile he retired to procure some law
DOks. Ii
While he was absent Mr.. Spruance
at.d to the Court that he believed he ,
10 shown by the witnesses that the I
fm was situated in New Castle Hun d
e'', but II he had not. he would ask q
flnlssion to call witnesses to that ef-
he had just closed speaking when
Cooper came in with his arms full
books, and said Your honor,
owe for q non suit" Mr.. .Spruance I'm .
look to state to Mr.. Cooper what he
oposed to show, when he objected, and
AIMED that an be had closed his case '
could not reopen it to produce addi. |
Ghal testimony. t
IN answer TO question by Judge n
'aston Mr.. Cooper said that one of p
grounds for n non-suit was the fact Il
a' the plaintiffs had not located the o
m' Mr.. Spruance claimed that az Il
lad made application to prove the 7
0hoh b1fore the motion was made by
Cooper, he should not be non d
A'tor an argument between counsel e
notion for non snit was rrul. q
ny the Court, and Mr.. spruance re l
'.a Elmer q. Clark, who stated that b
iar,n was In New Castle Hundred d
new Castle County. Mr. Cooper Il
a'n ~! moved for . non.snit, but before
,ng srgssunent the Court adjourned |
I'LL III O'clock this morning. Il
ATTE fRt,Ms kOBFLkH MI tlRE- IN
Ine Artitanaf Suvlnue "a m tb(2 Mar.JV