Delaware gazette and state journal., 1884-05-22
absolute rule that the case mnst be tried

absolute rule that the case mrst be tried
at the next term.
The case Of Henry Kairoth vs William
M. Cloud was resumed aud Harry
Emmons, Rsq, counsel for the defense,
addressed the Jury. He reviewed the
case at considerable length and was
followed by Charles B. Lore, Bsq also
for the defense, who spoke for 25 minutes.
j. d. Hofiecksr, Jr., Bsq counsel for the
plaintiff, reviewed the casa briefly.
At ABS O'Clock the jury were dis
charged until 10 3. M, yesterday.
The case Of Joseph q. Harper vs.
Joseph N. Harman, administrator Of the
late Hanson Hsrmsn, was taken up, and
a jury, with Isrsel Jefferis, oolored, FORE
man, empAneled. BENZ Nislds, Esq
represented the plaintiff and Lore &
Emmons the defendant.
Mr.. Nields made the following state
ment OF the case /: Sarah Martin died
iniestste during the month OF May, 1875,
and left feeble.minded child. Joseph
Il. Harper was tbe deoeased's admins
traitor and Ha 1son Harmsn his seourity
and legal adviser. The estate, after the
debts had been paid, amounted to $787.
Harper did not live in the State and
Harman received the money and gave
Harper due bill for $500. The estate
was not settled up until 1877. In 1876
Harper was appointed guardian for the
imbeoile child, and Hsrmsn went his
security and retained possession Of the
money.
Lewis T. Shepherd testified that he
knew the plaintiff and also the late Ham
son Harman. Being shown the due bill
he said he saw it in May, 1879, and that
he had also seen 1t on two occasions since,
three months ago, and two or three days
since. When he first saw it his attention
had not been called to 1t in any special
way. He was in the late Mr.. Harman's
office and seeing the bill lying on
a table had read 1t. He saw
Mr.. Harman alter the bill in two places,
the date and the amount. Both alter
ations were made with the same pen and
ink and at the same time. After the
alterations had been made the bill WAS
handed to Harper. Being cross- examined
the witness stated that the bill produced
in court WAS the same that he had seen
Mr.. Harman alter and then give to Mr..
Harper.
Mr.. Nields offered in evidence the bill,
copy Of the settlement of accounts
showing balance Of $7S7, letters Of sd-
ministration and the record OF the ap-
pointment of Harper as guardian for the
imbeoile child.
Charles Harper, brother Of the plain
tiff, testified that he knew the late Ham
son Harmon, and thst the imbeoils child
was at the almshouse. In February or
March, 1879, he met Mr.. Harman at Fifth
and King streets. Mr.. Harman then told
him that, il Mr.. Barlow, who was the
superintendent OF the almshouse, should
inquire where his (the witnessD sisters
(Mrs. Martin's) money was, to say he
did not know. Hanson then told him
(ths witness) that he had all the money
belonging to mis- sisters estate, and that
he had given to Joseph Harper, the
plaintiff, his note for it..
case.
Mr.. Lore then addressed the Jury. He
said the bill had not been paid because
it bore upon it's face, IS he believed, that
1t was not genuine. The date of the note
had been altered from 1875 to 1879 and
the amount had been changed to 1900.
What had been under the fxure in the
amount he could not say He did noi
believe the 3 was in the hsniwri iug
Of the deceased Mr. Harman, and called
attention not only TO that FAC. but ass tv
the fact that the 6sure had been IL ,de
with different lux.
James O'Toole was shown the bill. He
testified that he had seen Mr.. Harman's
handwriting frequently and that he had
known 1t Tor this past eight or ten years.
He had no hesitanoy in saying that he
did not think the figure 3 was in Mr..
Harman's handwriting. Mr.. Harman
used very rusty ink.
At 8. 80 O'Clock the case was submitted
to the jury. After Is minutes delibera-
ti0n the jury returned verdict in favor
Of the plaintiff for $500 and interest from
date, amounting to $40S. The jury was
then discharged until 10 q. m. TO morrow.
Mr.. L Llr5 applied for new trial of the
The judgment obtained by Harriet s..
Hsiues, formerly Harriet s. Dorsey,
on the ground that Judgment had not
been obtained in the PLAINTIFF proper
name.
The action in replevn brought by Har-
rist Dorsey against W. W.Pritohett was
discontinued.
Court adjourned at 5 So o'clock until
yesterday morning.
At the opening Of court, yesterday
the csse of Orr, Painter & Co, va, Henry
+ .Pilkels, was coutiI ued, on motion OF
B.rjAm Nields, Z , defendants coun-
sel, with the consent OF Joshua Maris,
Ed, counsel for plaintiffs.
Chiei Justice Comegys then delivered
the charge of the court in the case OF
Ksfroth vs.. Cloud. In opening he in
formed the jury that they should ignore
the note given by Cloud in favor Of
Kafroth and Sensing, al it was joint
note, and although one of the endorsers
had been paid his share of the amount,
the action for the balance should have
baen brought in the name of both, for
the use of Ksfroth. The court then
defined the legal meani g OF partnership,
| as II .he jury were satisfied that part.
nership existed in this Ease they could
not fud for the plaintiff, as 1t is we'll
settled principle that ons partner cannot
sus another until a settlement of their
Affairs has been effected. A legal part
nership is voluntary association of two
or more people who join their money,
goods, labor and skill, with the agree
mept express or implied, to divide the
profits or share the losses Of the partner
ship. In aluding to the extent
to which the jury should 60 in case they
found verdict for the plaintiff, the court
further said that they could not consider
the note for $500, se 1t was admitted on
both sides that the note for $500 and the
check for $205 were sent to the plaintiff
for the express purpose of taking up the
$500 note, and he had no right to apply
them to the due bill he then had in his
possession, and upon which no action in
law has b5en brought.
At l0.40 O'Clock the jury retired.
In the case OF Oliver V. Jamison VS.
Peter b Lsgates, judgment was admitted
for the plaintiff, for $43 Al.
The appeal Gases of American Sewing
Machine Co, and John A. Shsnahan, and
OF William ]. McClsry vs. the mayor and
Council of Wilmington, were continued
until next term.
In Alden & Bro. vs. buckingham
Co., Judgment was allowed the plaintiffs
the amount to be asoertained by the pro
thonotsry.
Application was made by Levi C. Bird
Esq., counsel for the B. & o, r. r Co.
for a commission to condemn certain
land in the Seventh ward for railroad
purposes. lie said he would name tw,
persons, Mr.. Vandegritt, counsel for th'
land owners, two others, and desired thu
court to name the hfth. The commission
as agreed upon, Is composed OF S. Rod
mond Smith, chairman; William 7. Por
ter and Joseph L. Carpenter, Jr., selected