Delaware gazette and state journal., 1884-05-29

| no" uao uoe, anu KNEW IL was bad dog.
lloa Ferris said his acquaintance with the
dog ceased about two years ago, but prior To
that time the animal frequently interviewed
him. Time and again it rushed at him as he
passed Chamberlain's house. This became of
such regular occurrence that he always armed
| himself with loaded cane at nights and a
stone in the day time for protection. He
frequently saw the dog run at persons pass
Ing the house.
The plaintiff here rested and the defense
called MIR. Chamberlain to the stand He
said he never knew the dog to bite or molest
| any person; neither did he ever hear any com.
plants. In fact, the dog was 30 mild man
nered that when the boys annoyed him by
jumping over the fence into his yard he tried
to set the dog upon them, but the animal always
| refused. He did not know that his dog bit
Warner. He saw the bite on Warmers leg,
but did not think it amounted to much. He
did not tell Warner that he would not have
the bite for $1,000, and would bo willing to
let all the dogs in the city BITE him at
the rate OF 81 bite, If the
bites were no worse than Warner a
bite. He knew Warner well, but never knew
him to do days work while he lived in the
Ninth ward. He said he gave the dog away
after Warner WAS bitten, and in the hands Of
lts new owner 1t WAS Btung to death by bees.
He further said that there was vicious dog
in the neighborhood owned by man named
Moore. He admitted, however, that it was
his dog that Adam Orr shot at and wounded,
Frank E. Gallagher said he knew Cham.
berlain's dog, but never knew it to exhibit
vicious disposition. He further said that
Warner came TO HIM to have the wound on
his leg dressed, but it was 30 slight that he
thought it needed no attention.
William q. Baker knew the dog to be
quiet animal 30 also did Andrew q. Wilson,
who frequently hunted with him.
The dafenduut here rautad pha r,IuintiH
called DIR. Flemming Carrow, who testified that
II the wonnd WAS of such a character az de-
scribed by MIR. Gallagher one Of the dc.
PENDANTS witnesses, ,cauterization would not be
necessary, but il it was as bad as Warner said
it was, cauterization would be the proper
course. DR.. Peter Cooper said it WAS the
proper course for a physician TO cauterize
wound caused by the bite of dog unless
certain that the dog WAS not rabid. This tes-.
timony was produced to offset one of the
points OF the defense, which WAS that
Warmers wound was aggravated by being
cauterized.
Mr.. Warner WAS recalled to deny some
points in Mr.. Chamberlaln's testimony. He
said there was still big scar on his leg
from the effects OF the wound ; In fact he
was "marked for life."
DIR. Cooper and Mr.. Gallagher were both
recalled to give expert testimony as to the
danger of hy6rophobia from such a bite az
Mr.. Warner received, and then the evidence
concluded MIR. Ward commenced his open
ing address to the jury, and spoke untili12
MIR. Emmons, for the defense, followed, and
spoke for 80 minutes, when court adjourned
until o'clock.
At Saturday afternoons 8 session of court,
the case of Warner VS.. Chamberlain,
wherein the plaintiff claimed damages
for being bitten by the defendants dog,
came to an end After the olosing argu
ments Of oounsel, the charge Of the court
was delivered by Chief Justice Comegys.
He said that unless the jury believed that
this dog WAS OF ferocious disposition, and
that the defendant was aware OF the fact,
tho plaintiff could not recover dsmages.
But II on the other hand they believed
that the testimony of the witnesses
showed that this animal was Of fero.
cious and dangerous disposition, and that
the defendant had not taken the neces-
sary precautions to prevent him doing
injury to others, they would then be
justified In rendering G verdict in favor
Of the plaintiff. II such verdict should
be rendered, the jury must calculate the
damages by the cost OF the professional
service and nursing of the defendant, his
lost time, and the consequent injury and
suffering which he endured.
The jury retired at o'clock and after
deliberating for so minutes, returned
verdict for the plaintiff to the amount of
OF $36, with six cents costs and the costs
OF tho suit.
The motion made by William C.
Spruancs, ESQ.,, on Mon day week for rule
to show cause why writ OF mauds mus
should not be issued, compelling William
Il. Swift, president Of the Diamond
Match Company of this city, to exhibit
the books ard papers of the company to
David NJ. Richardson, stookho!der Of
the company, who resides iu Detroit,
Mich was then taken up. Gsorss
Gray, Esq, counsel for Mr.. Swift, moved
that the rule be- vacated, which motion
WAS opposed by Mr.. Spruanoe. After
lengthy argument Mr.. dray's motion
WAS filed and made returnable Monday
mo pi1g for further argument
A jury was drawn in the case of Samuel
d. Forbes VS.. Cornelius x Santmsn, an
action to recover on a mortgage of 81 600.
William Sp,uance, Ed, for the
plaintiff apd hoffecker x Hoifeoker for
the defendants.
Mr.. Hoff 4oker, after the plaintiffs case
had been stated, moved tor non fuit,oA
the ground that the principal could rot
be collected az long az the interest was
paid, and claimed that il had always
been paid as often as /. fell due Arpu-
meut between counsel epsued, but without
rendering decision the oourt discharged
the jury until this morning. Minor bus.
iuess and motions occupied the attention
of the court until nearly o 'olock, when
H. No a Ia
Consideration OF .he csse of Samuel b
Forbes Va. Corneliul X Ssntnan, aoti0u
to recover on m lrtgsge, wsB resumed in
the superior olnr. Monday morning. Al.
Hptieoker, for the defense, Irnewrd his
motion for non'suit, on the ground that
the interest on the mortgage had bsen
paid regularly, aud the condition Of Tue
bond, therefore, not violated.
Tho motion was opposed by Mr..
Spruaucs, for the plai tiff, and the ar
gument continued until after 10 o'clock,
and them the court r. fused motion tor e
non suit, on the ground that ss the mort
gage, though not hue and paysb.e until
1885. contained an agreement that II
the payment OF interest was 1efaulled for
80 days, the whole amount, principal aud
accrued inter at, was thereby rendered
due and payable; therefore,, the general
plea Of payment made by the defense
was insufficient, as it should have been
special plea, traversing the allegation OF
non. payment made by the plaintiff. The
trial of the case then proceeded,
Mr.. Hofecker addressed the jury in
an opening statement for the defense.
He said Cornelius & Sentman bought two
tracts of land at Cedar and Wright
streets of George W. May aud gave Msy
a mortgage of $4,000, payable December,
1885, with a provision permitting fore
closure if the interest defaulted at any
time. Afterwards they became involved
by building operations, having started
four houses on one of the lots, when
Forbes came In and offered to procure the
mortgage from May pay the claims against
their houses and give them $3.50, II they
would convey the land to him. They
consented, and executed the deeds, which
were drawn by Forbes, but they received
only $50, and after the deeds were exc
cuted found that the property was not
conveyed to Forbes, but to his house
keeper, Maria C. Hartman. This scheme,
Mr. Hoffeeker said, was to enable Forbes,
who held Mary q mortgage, to foreclose and
thus cut out the mechanics liens entered
against the property by the defendants
creditors, which he had promised 10
syttle Unless the holders Of these liens
could establish their priority, they would
be cut out, and thus Forbes would obtain
possession Of the lots, with their improve
ments, for but a few dollars over the
mortgage.
Jaaye Fl Coruelius testified that the