Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1884-12-04
s35O; MrOh 18Th, 1877 $500 July OH,

1919 pow NL0 81 sWO paw eng " or >
:. .ar ~ Mss. Scowdrick to Martin Il
W ker; tal, 81, 1913 IS
J4Nrs & osdfick as rA'lai 10 the
'tsI4 aud les iti,d to tb- pAsthaatA rs d.
TAIL by Mr.. Hotfsoksr
Objection was raised by MF. BIsss to
the testimony Of Scowdrick in reference
to the claim OF payment amounting to
", 1875 II In cash, notes and merchandise.
This sum WAS the proceeds Of the sale Of
Scowdriok's effects by Walker, who was
his administrator, and who had appro'
priated this amount to the credit Of the
mortgage held by him.
The court held that ths defense could
only claim 40 q credit on this account,
Martins pro rata share Of the proceeds Of
the sale, AS he (Martin) had no right to
appropriate to his mortgage money be-
longing TO the other creditors.
Mr. Soowdrick testified that the pro.
Deeds OF his sale Of store goods amounted
TO over %, 500, which he turned over TO
Mr.. Walker, the assignee. Ont OF this.
he said, Mr.. Walker paid the olsims OF
some creditors, and applied the balance,
$3,l25.l7, to his mortgage. Mr.. Soow-
driok said he since paid other creditors
out Of his own earnings. he then testi-
fed at length to the other payments, and
said he was not aware until 1882 Of the
transfer Of the mortgage to Col. Clayton,
He was kept or the stand until O'Clock,
when oourt adj ,urned until O'Clock.
AT the ressssmblipg Of court, At 3
O'Clock Monday afternoon, the Clayton
Scowdrtok case was resumed. James H.
Scowdrick, the chief witness for the de-
Tense, who was on the stand at the noon
adjournment, was CROSS questioned for
over an hour by plaintiffs attorney, John
Biggs, Esq.
Mrs Eiesnora Soowdriok, wife Of James
Il. Soowdriok, was next called and testt-
fad to making two payments Of $500 and
$500, to Martin Z. Walker, on account Of
the mortgage.
Frank Rliason, son Of the previous wit.
ness, and one Of the children for whom
Martin 3. Walker was guardian during
their minority, testified that he came OF
age February 10Th, 1876. He said tina.
when Mr.. 5oowdrick's goods were sold at
assignae's sale, he, through his elder
brother, bought goods to the amount OF
$3.50, and that, In payment, this sum was
retained by Mr.. Walker in settling his
guardianship.
After offering in evidence the record OF
a suit brought by Col. Clayton sgainlt
Martin L, Walkers administrators, ON
sccount Of the mortgage, the defense
rssted.
In rebuttal the plaintiff called for
Frazer Eliason, brother Of Frank Eliason,
who identified two oeipts, given by him
to Martin Walker, one for $3.50. AZ and
the other for $l30. The first receipt was
on account OF goods bought by him and
his brother at Scowdriok'a sale, but he
did not remember what the other was for,
Clerk Of the Peace Edwin R. Cochran
identified an order OH him given by
James Il. Soowdriok to his father, Robert
A. Cochran, and accepted by the latter.
The amount was $428. 28, and was for the
board OF two OF Mrs. Eliason's children,
who lived with Mr.. Scowdriok, and for
whom the witness was guardian. In
response to question by Mr.. Biggs, Mr..
Cochran said shat Soowdriek was still
indebted to his father's estate to the
extent of 81, 200 or 81, 800, with interest
from 1875.
Col. Joshua Clayton testifed that when
he took the mortgage from Walker he
understood from the latter that Sow
driok owed hin $4,000. The mortgage at
that time had been reduced to 81, 900,
AVID he gave Walker an agreement TO the
4ffeo. that he would reassign the mort
gage whenever Walker was ready to re-
turn the money. The first intsrvleS be
had with SGowdrick was January ~ b,
1883, and SJowdriok then admitted that
he still owed on the mortgage and
promised to make payment on account
of ths interest due after harvest
Charles H. Clayton was called and
examined the policy Of Insurance aooom-
panyipg the mortgage. He identifisd the
signatures OF Soowdriok and Walker to
the assignment Of the policy, having seen
them sign.
]. Thomas Budd testified that both
Soowdriek snd Walker came to his office
to get him to write the assignment Of the
policy Of the mortgage TO Col. Clayton,
aud wrote for them letter to the inBur.
snce company in relation 10 the policy,
which both signed. Mr.. Biggs offered
the letter in evidence.
Martin B. Burris, one Of the admins.
l,Stors OF Martin K Walker, deceased,
tsttified to frding the receipts and pspers
offered by Mr. BiRSs, as having been
found by Eim among Mr.. Walkers
eff CTS.
Thomas Dagit, Z q counsel for Martin
Walkers ADMINISTRATORS, identified
lstser tered by Mr.. Biggs, which Mr.
sooS driok had written TO him, specifying
some payments he had made on the mort
gage. Afterwards called On MIN in rels
tion to the matter, and did not then claim
to have paid tns mortgage.
Harry sharplsy, Esq testified that at
Mr.. Bisgs' request he took notes OF the
,sstimony at the trisi Of sne case In May
last. Mr.. Biggs Questioned him in regard
to certain statements made by Mr.. Sc w.
drick, to prove Inaccuracies in the lattet's
testimony.
Court. at 6.1O O'Clock, adjourned for
one hour.
During ths evening session the taking
Of testimony wss concluded and the casa
sra ued by counsel. after which court sd-
ourped until 10o'Clook Tuesday mcruiIg
Iumsdiately after the opening Of court,
Tuesday, the charge OF the court in
CLAYTON va Sa6Wlr'ok case was d 'liy5red
aud at 10 80 O'Clock he iury retired
d jury was then drawn to try The case
OF John r FLYNN vs. james and Patrick
Monaghan, action rar traspass. Samuel
W MoCaullsy and Anthony Higgins,
E,q9., for plaiatitf, and Harry kmmouo
and George d. Bates, Bsqs,, for the
defendants.
afr. Higgins made a statement Of the
case. The plaintiff ia tenant, In posses-
sion OF q property on the west side 4
| Madison street, below Fourth, IL feet
inches on Madison street, and ruOriug
back SO fset. At the southern end OF
lhis property Ia aga feet wide sliey,
extending to Third street, which the
defendants claimed should also tXtend
northerly past Fiuu's property to their
property, which adjoins HE, and reaches
TO Fourth street The defendants, there
fore, removed Flinn's fence, which was
| on the alley, and dug up the alley, for
which Finn claims damages. The de-
tend ants admit the trespass but claim
Justification.
An hour or more was consumed in dis
plsyipg the deeds OF the ooutsndiDg par
ties TO thsie respective properties, and
tlan NJ VI Child, real estate aaeut, was
called He satd be sold the property in
que ton to the Monaghans, then owned
by Isaac Chsmbe lAin, on Saturday, July
18th, 1868 A hand bill OF the sele, with
plot annexed, was recognized by him,
and offered in evidence, but Mr.. Higsint
o. jtcted, calming that the defense
should rest upon the face Of their deed.
and not upon outside plots.
Mr.. EmmonH claimed that the plot wat
admissible as an explanation Of the deed
and cited authorities In support Of hii
position.
Mr.. Bmmons WAS sustained by tn,
caurt (Judge Houston) and Mr.. Higgini
noted an exception.