Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1883-12-13
DOINGS OF THE COURTS.
4 DECISION IN FAVOR OF RUSSELL
CDE.
The PIainIiT Secures n Verdict in
the McCreRry-MOore Case Other
business.

the McCreary-MOor Case-Other
Business.
Court resumed proceedings yesterday
week at 5 o'clock, p. m. after a recess last
ing little over one hour, and imme-
diately after the opening George Gray,
Esq., commenced his argument for the
plaintiff in the Russell Coe vs.. Thomas
English irespass case.
He spoke until 80 o'clock, and closed
with an urgent appeal to the jury to
render a verdict, not only for the full
amount for the value of the property
taken, with interest to date, but also
exemplary damages. George II. Bates,
ESQ for the defendant, submitted sew
eral points of law on which he asked the
court to charge the jury.
The charge was read by Judge Hous
ton, who reviewed all the facts OF the
CASE, and said it was DOW for the jury to
decide whether the stock taken were the
property OF Russell Coe or John K. Will
son. II 1t were satisfied that the articles
seized and sold were the property OF Rus
sell Coe, 1t must render verdict for the
amount taken. But II it thought the
evidence ahowed that the cattle and i'm
plemerts were the property OF John R.
Wilson, aud he was not acting as the
agent OF Russell Coe in regard to the
stock, it must render verdict in favor OF
the defendant, but he did not think there
should be any exemplary damages.
The reading of the charge consumed
nearly half an hour. When the Judge
closed, the jury ritired to the grand jury
room for consultation. Itreturned shortly
before 6o'olock with a verdict In favor OF
Russell Coe for $lSl.94, and was dis
charged until Thursday morning.
Shortly after the Jury retired at 5
O'Clock, another jury was drawn and the
case Of James \. Veszey vs. James U.
Williams, taken up for trial. This is
also case Of alleged trespass. The plain
tiff is represented by William C. SpruaDce
and Clifford James, Esqs., while L G.
Vallsndigham, Esq., appears for the de.
fendant.
After Mr.. James had stated the nature
Of the case to the jury, Mr.. Spruance
offered the deeds OF the property to prove
ownership.
George G.. Elisson was sworn, but just
as he WAS about to begin his testimony,
the Coe jury came in, and as soon as the
verdict was rendered the court adjourned
until Thursday morning.
Court reopened at 10 o'clock Thursday
with full bench, and resumed the
trial of the case of Veazsy vs. Williams,
for trespass. The trouble arises over
disputed boundary line separating the
lands Of James T. Veszey and James G.
Williams, and it is claimed that Will
liams came on the land which Veazsy
says belongs to him, and cut aud carried
away wood. The defense contends that
Williams was inside his own lines, and
that the wood cut was on his property.
George +. Eliasou, who had just COM
menced his testimony when court ad-
journed last evening, was recalled and
testified that 20 years ago he had acted
as referee to locste this line. MIR
Spruance Was about to rea document
in reference to the matter, when Mr..
Vallandigham objected. After a dis
oussion lasting some time the court de.
lidsd taat the document could be- offered,
and 1t was admitted as evidence.
The witness then stated that at the
time he assisted to locate the line, Will
liams had lot adjoining Vrszsy's line,
and the boundary was marked with
stones.
Daniel Farra testified that he Lad sur
veyed the tarm, aud identified plot
shown him by Mr.. Spruauce.
George BJulden testified that he acted
as referee with Mr.. Eliason some 20
years ago; some of the land in dispute is
wild, aud grown up In bushes; the wit.
ness understood ths. Williams had few
peach trers on it some years ago; there
are a number of stump5 of chestnut and
other trees on the ground, that the wit
ness understood had bssn cut by dsfen
dsnt; these trees were worth about $40
Levi Huggins testified that he exam
ined the stumps of the trees on Veazsy'r
place Williams WAS present, and said
that he had cut them; some OF the trees
had been worked into rails and posts, and
others used for wood ; he thought the
timber taken was worth from S35 TO $50 !;
could not tell what the trees were worth
before they were cut.
Thomas Frazer testified that he owned
the Williams'land at one time ; at the
time he owned 1t, the adjoining land was
owned by Mrs. Jacquott and there was a
fenee between the lauds the witness put
the fence there himself about Is years
ago.
Court adjourned at l O'Clock until
O'Clock In the afternoon.
Court reconvened at 8 o'clock Thurs
day afternoon with all the judges
present, and the examination OF wit
nesses for the plaintiff in the case of
James 7. Veszey vs.. James G. Williams,
in the suit for trespass was continued.
Alfred Black and James Thomas, both
IL 1,. I'D Hra I'D
having been cut on Mf. Veszey's land,
the last named testified that he had
hauled posts and rails from it there was
fence between the lands, and the timber
was from Mr.. Veazey's side.
Moses Webster, colored, was sworn and
testified that in 1877 he went to work toI
Mr.. Veazey, and by his orders had cut
lumber and fire wood on the place the
piece Of woodland was quite large, and
the witness had cut wood all over it.
Mr.. Spruance said there was one more
witness he would like to have called, but
as he lived In Maryland, and hao gone
home, he was beyond the process of the
court. He said that he had no more wit
ness es and would close,
Mr.. Vallandigham Immediately moved
for non suit, and made a long argu
ment in support of his motion. He con
tended that no evidence had been pro
duoed to show occupancy of the strip o
land on which the alleged trespass wal
committed, either by Mr.. Veazey or the
former owner of the place.
The motion WAS opposed by Mr.. Spru
anoe, who spoke for some time when thu
oourt decided that ownership always gar
ries possession with it, and he though
enough had been shown in this case Il
make it necessary to let it go to the jury
and the motion for a non suit was over
ruled.
While Mr.. Vsllandigham was mskipI
his opening argument to the jury, h
stated his line of defense, and what h
intended 20 call witnesses to prove. A
soon as he closed, Mr.. Sprusncs said HI
would object to any such testimony, an
made long argument against it.
This resulted in discussion that con
tinued for some time, and the cour
finally decided that the defendant coul
Introduce evidence to show use, or ocou
pancy of the land.
The only witness called by the deten
dsnt was oolored man named dOhl
Williams, and he testified that James G
Williams had the use OF the land as ia
back as 1878, and he had seen him cut
ting wood on it, but had never know
any one to forbid his doing so or intel
fering with him. On oross-examinatiol
by MIR. Spruance, he located the plae
where the wood was cut SO far over tina
1t must have been either just at the lin
claimed by Veazey, or on the William
piece,