Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1884-12-04
SUPERIOR QUIET.

Nmo Nrobpk@h Oase-NeFO1cu Tor tho
Plaintiff for $3.50 25 iu clay ton
VS. Scowdrtck-An EveninS Session
for Argument.
Al the opening of court Wed, q lay
week the CASE Of Buckingham & 20.
vs. Elizabeth MuFray's executor was re.
sumed, and the court announced that the
motion Of counsel for the defense for
non-suit was refused.
George q Bates, Esq, made the open.
ing address for the defense and then
called James E. Murray to the stand
Murray testified that In request TO Buck.
ipghsm Il Co % demand for references
wheD he desired to buy goods on credit
he referred them to Mrs. Murray and
others Of New Castle, and was afterwards
told that Mrs. Murray would be salts.
factory He returned on February
23d, 1882, with Mrs. Murray's
order and bought bill Of
goods. Witness identified aud recognised
q bill for gooda, dated February 23d,
amounting to 1886 80, with q credit Of
$50 30. He also identified bill OF the
date Of February 22d, S6 SO, for barrel
Of oil. Both bills were made out In his
name, as were all other bills that he had
AooohNoN tApLt ohphthkuAu ~ SUs nll
the bills we're offered In evidence. The
witness further testified that he had seen
Buckingham & Co make charges
on their books Of bills bought
by him, and they were in
the name of James e. Murray
the name of Elizabeth Murray did not
appear. He had also seen their ledger
account, which was also In his name,
The witness also said thst between the
18th aud 18th Of October, 1882. when the
sheriff was on Buckingham & Co., John
Buckingham told him that II any
strangers asked him II he owed Buokipg.
ham Il Co. anything to say ''no," and
David Buckingham said II he did this they
would make things satisfactory with him.
A receipt, signed by Buckingham Il Co !,
for $50, ON account, from James e. MUIR.
ray, was offered in evidence.
Gu ctoss.e examination Murray said he
could mot remember having bought any.
thing from Buckingham & Co., previous
to getting the order from Mrs. Murray,
except the barrel Of oil purchased on the
22d of February. He said that the order
given by Mrs Murray was simply an
endorsement Of his honesty. Witness
said he Was no relation to Mrs. Murray.
The defense closed with Murray's testi-
mony, and the plaintiff recalled David
Buckingham, who testified that the book
account offered In the trial, in which the
goods bought by Murray were charged to
James E. Murray by Elizabeth Murray
has not been altered In any way since
the entries were made. he also denied
Murray's testimony In regard to being
asked to deny owing Buckingham & Co.
anything.
This closed the testimony and argu-
ment was then commenced by Harry
Rmmops, Esq fol the plaintiffs. John
K, Bradford, Bsq., followed for the defen-
dsnt, and he was followed by George Il
Bates, Rsq. Mr.. Lore made the closing
Argument, for the PLAINTIFF In the
course Of the Argument plaintiffs counsel
dsolared that the exact amount OF their
olaim, after allowing all orsdits, was
1881 66, with interest from October az,
1882.
Argument was finished at 8 35 o'clock,
when court adjourned until 10 O'Clock
Friday morning.
Court opened at 10 O'Clock Friday morn.
ing, when the roll Of the second penel
Jury was called, all answering but three.
The case of Buckingham & Co. vs..
Elizabeth Nh rays executor was then re
sumsd Argument by counsel having
been finished Wednesday evening, the
charge OF the court was delivered by
C'aief Justice ComeHys The charge
detailed at length the effect Of contracts
between parties made on the strength
Of an order or guarantee from
O third party and said that In this case IL
was an open question whether the goods
furnished by the plaintiffs to James K
Murray WIRE furnished to Elizsbsth
Murray as the original debtor or to Jsmes
Z Murray. This was a question of fact
for the Jury to decide from the evidence
AT 10 rs O'Clock the jury retired.
George v. N. LAthrop, Esq willard
Lathrop, Esq and Willard N. Lillibridgs,
Esq Of the Detroit, Mich bar, were
introduced by William Spruance Eco
aud admitted to the bar of New Castle
county. They will be associate counsel
with Mr.. Spruanoe in the attempt now
being made by David NJ. Richardson OF
D,troit, to compel the Diamond state
Match Company of this city to make
showing Of its books In court, Tor the
benefit OF Mr.. Richardson and Others, who
were stock holders in the company.
Tails case wac then resumed on IN az
plioAti0n for writ Of mandamus to
compel the match company to make the
required show of their boaks, ard the ap
plication was argued by William C.
spruanoe, Etq, up to the noon adjourn
meut.
Shortly before l O'Clock the jury in the
Buckingham case cent note to the
- oh fr1WthnH tnaNrnatfono In pa
gard TO the paper sent BY Mrs Elizsbeth
Murray to buckingham & Co whether
Il was On order to eive goods on her
q count to lanes 4 Murray, or simply 8
recommendation for tie latter
Chief Justice Comesys informed the
Jury that the Us er in question was All
order author zing Rockingham Il Co. TO
deliver goods 20 Jaues T. Murray on her
account but the question for thu iury to
decide was whet'..ir tDs goods were 90
livered to James Il Murray on his owu
credit, or on tho strength OF this order
Ii the former, the jury must find for the
defendant; bus IL they believed other
wise, their verdict must be for the plain
tiff.
The Jury then retired, and the court
took recess until O'Clock.
At court in the afte moon, the argu-
ment In the application OF Daniel M.
Richardson Of Detroit, Mich, for q man
damus compelling the Diamond Match
Company 10 allow him a transcript Of
their books was continued by VIII
liam G. Spruance, BFq., counsel
for Rich ardpon, who spoke until 5 O'Clock
At 4 40 o'clock the jury in the case OF
Buckingham & Co. vs.. Elizabeth Muir
rays executor came In With a verdict for
the plaintiff for 1881 sc, being the full
amount OF the claim, with intsres to date.
In the mandamus case MIR. Nields, Of
counsel for the match company replied Ia
Mr.. spruanoe and spoke urti' O'Clock
when court adjourned until O'Clock Sat
urday morning
The enti~a session of the superior
court, on Saturday, was occupied by
argument In the Diamond Match Con.
pRny mauiamus oaFe. Mr.. Nields, fo'
the msloh company, tpoke uatil II
O'Clock, aud was followed by his col
league, Mr.. Gray, WHO spoke until the
noon ADJOURNMENT. Ex Judge George "
N. Lothiop sppks in the afternoon until
80 when court adjourned until Monday
The Judge reserved his decision.
Court reassembled at 10 O'Clock Monday
morning, when the roll OF the genera
Jury WAS called, and also OF the special
Jury empAneled for the second trial q
the case OF Col. Joshua Clayton Of
Thomas, assignee Of Martin K. Walker,
vs.. James h. Soowdrick and wife. The
first trial resulted in 9 verdict for tn,
defendants. The case Of Clayton vs.
6oowdriok was Immediately taken up
and the following Jury drawn: Thomas
l. J. Baldwin, William G. Lodge, JohI