Daily Republican., 1884-05-26
PRICE ONE CENT,
SUPERIOR COURT.
SHALL DANAGE0 AVA BDEn
-TnE PLAIUTIFR IN TINE
D04 CASE.

Immediately after Court re-convene
IlastSaturday afternoon, Harry Emmons
ESQ, concluded his argument Tor Tn
deleose in the case Of Warner vs.. Cham
berlin. in the action for damages sus
FAMED by the plaintiff from the bit
Of dog, belonging to tho defend
ant.
Herbert H. Ward, Esq, closed fol
the plaintiff, and at the conclusion o.
he argument the jury were briefly
charged by the Court and retired q,
4 o'clock. They returned at 40 o.
clock with q verdict in favor Of the
plaintiff for $36 and the costs OF the
suit.
A Jury was then drawn, and the case
of Samuel D. Forbes vs. Cornelius 4
Seminar was taken up for trial.
The plaintiff was represented by Will
liam G. Spruance, Esq, while Hoffeckel
u Hofiecker appeared for the defen.
dants. Just AZ Mr.. Spruance was about
te state his case to the jury, George
Gray, Esq, attorney for the Diamond
Match Company, called the attention OF
the Court to the rule that was applied
for on the previous Monday by Viii
liam c. Spruance, Esq, attorney for
David M. Richardson, to show cause
why q writ Of mandamus should not
bs issued compelling William B.Swift,
President of the Company, to produce
the books and papers Of the concern.
Mr.. Gray moved that the rule
be quashed, and argued in favor Of bis
motion. This was resisted by Mr..
Spruance, and after the discussion had
lasted for some time 1t was finally
agreed to defer the whole matter until
to-day, when argument will be heard
Oh the application for rule, and on
Mr.. Gray's motion to vacate.
Proceedings were then resumed In
the case of Forbes vs.. Cornelius Il
Sentman, and the case stated to the jury
by Mr.. Spruance, who said that 1t was
an action to recover on mortgage OF
50, 900, which had been assigned TO
Samuel D. Forbes.
As soon as he ceased speaking, and
before any of the Witnesses were call
ed, Mr.. Hoffecker said that he would
ark for non-suit, on the ground that
the principal was not due until 1885,
and that according to the agreement
proceedings could not be entered upon
| it as long as the interest was paid, and
this Mr.. Hofecker claimed had been
done.
Mr.. Spruance said the agreement was
that no action should be taken, provided
the interest was paid within thirty days
after it foil due, and this he claimed
had not been done. A somewhat heat
ed discussion ensued between the attor-
lneys, which was brought to termina.
ton by the Court discharging the jury
until 10 o'clock this morning.
Mr.. Spruance then rose and said that
| he felt it but just to himself to resent
the manner IN which this case was
being conducted by the counsel on the
other side, and was proceeding to speak
| in an excited manner when he was
checked by Judge WoOtten.
| The case Of Charles Green, vs.. John
Maloney, Walter H. Hayes, Esq, and
Bradford & Vandergrift, attorney, was
called up end its trial fixed tO follow
immediately after the conclusion OF
the case Of Forbes against Cornelius d
Sentman.
On motion OF Edward G. Bradford,
j., Esq BENJAMIN ia.mipp Mislds. Esq., coun.
tina bi,l of particulars, IN the cases Of
William Fl. Iiersou against the Gtna,
Hartford, Liverpool and London and
Globe and Phoenix Insurance Compan-
| les. On motion Of Mr.. Bradford the
commissioner appointed to take testi-
mony in the divorce case Of stoops vs..
Stoops WAS continued.
Charles M. Curtis, Esq moved to dis
miss an appeal from the Judgment Of a
Justice for want Of prosecution and 1t
was placed on the trial list for the next
term.
John Biggs, Esq, moved for q new
trial at the case of Clayton vs. Scow-
drick at the morning session.
Court adjourned at $40 until 10 O..
clock this morning.