Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1884-11-27
The notes ana check given 10 Mr. Linton

the notes and check giveh to Mr. Linton
by the MoWhoiters were nor honor I'd.
The plaintiff here rested, and mr, Gray
for the defense made motion for nom
sult on the ground that the proof offered
by the plaintiffs was not based upon the
declarations set forth In their bill Of par
tieulars-which we're that the action WAS
10 recover for machine sold bE the de-
fendants for the plaintiff, whereas the
proof was that the action was TO recover
for q machine sold by the plaintiffs to
the defendants.
The motion was resisted by Mr.. Vande.
grit on the ground that the declarations
In the case were laid in the common
counts of the nRrr, and not necessarily
in the bill Of particulars.
The court consulted for some time, and
then Chief Justice Comegys announced
that rpsiority favored the motion for
non suit, which wac accordingly granted.
Judge Houston dissentea.
Court then adjourned until O'Clock
In the afternoon.
At the reassemhling Of court, In the
afternoon, . Jury was drawn to try the
case Of William Keyes,by ais next friend,
Arthur II. Smith, vs. john a. Peoples ct.
and Lore & Emmons for the defendants.
Mr.. Johnston made the opening state.
ment for the plaintiff. He seid the case
was suit on an executors bond, by the
residusry legatee, against the heirs and
devisees Of the exeeutor's surety. He
said the father Of Reyes died In 1864,
and John p. Dsver was the executor
named in the will, and took
af I'D. fatr
Peoples going on his execu'
tors bond as security. Dever
passed two accounts before the register OF
Wills, the last Of which, on May Gath,
1870, showed that he owed the estate
| 81, 206 as. Peoples afterwards died, and
the suit on his bond Ia now made against
his heirs and devisees for the amount due
to Ksyes' estate by Dsver. Mr. Johnston
said interest pay ments on the amount
due had been made mp to December 10Th,
1878, from which date interest WAS now
claimed.
Register /. G, Grnbb and James n.
| Housman testified TO Mr.. Keyes' will,
in the official records, with copies Of
Deyer's returns, which were offered In
evidence. The will Of Mr.. Peoples was
also proved and offered. John Peoples,
fed the signature attached to Dever's
William Peoples.
william Reyes, the plaintiff, was called
and testified that his mother who was the
chief devisee OF his fathers will, he COM
| ing In after her death) had died on
August 30sh, 1874.
The plaintiff here rested, and Mr.. Lore
1 To- tha nd at
the devisees of William Peoples will are
only liable TO the extent Of the assets
| shown to have come into their hands.
| william Peoples property was left in
/ srust, to trustees named In the will, and
/ there had been no proof offered
| to show that the property had come into
| the possession and use Of the devisees,
| or that the trust had been executed. Mr.,
Lore also offered as ground for the
motion that William Reyes, the plaintiff,
had brought suit prematurely, as he has
\ not yet attained his majority, and is not the
fuli devisee Of hts fsinsr's will uhtil he
is Of age. Mr. Lors argued ut consider
| able length IN sup Vss Vi hts Lotion.
MIR. HGyes u0CIb is,ed tae motion, but
he court teld ia. Mr. Lore's points
sere we'll tEf III u I'd granted the non-suit.
rla next case ready for trial was
Buckingham & Co., use OF Benjamin s.
Clark We. Benjamin ]. Kelley, Elisabeth
MutIay's executor, In which Jury WAS
drawn. Lore & Emmons for PLAINTIFF,
and George q. Bates and John K.
Bradford, Rsqs., for defendants.
Mr.. Lore stated that the action WAS to
recover for goods furnished by the plain
tgifs to James e. Murray Of New Castle,
on the written order OF Elisabeth Murray,
until she countermanded the order. The
amount claimed was $625.87, with in.
tersst from October 18th, 1882, making .
total Of $704,73.
Mr.. Lore offered In evidence the will Of
Elisabeth Murray, In which Benz j.
Kelley was named az executor. He then
CALLED Frank Il. Herbert, who identified
the signature OF Mrs, Murray to an order
on Buckingham & Co. to furnish goods to
James Murray. The order Waa dated
February 22i, 1882, and was written IS
we'll "a signed by Mrs. Murray. Mr..
Herbert also identified the signature to 8
paper dated November lat, 1882 in
which all persons were warned Agsipst
trusting anybody on her account, either
by order or otherwise.
D. &, Buckingham produced the orig
inal books Of entry Of the firm and testi
fed to goods delivered to James Murray,
on the order Of E!iz absth Murray. The
charges were made Rga nst "Elizabeth
Murray, by James Murray" and the
goods were delivered TO James Murray
The book was offered In evidence.
Mr.. Buckingham was kept on the
stand proving bills and charges against
Murray, and credits on the same, until
6 O'Clock, when court adjourned until lO
O'Clock this morning.
During Monday afternoons session Of
court, the jury In the appesI case Of John
r. Speck vs.. Francis Scheu, came In with
verdict for Soheu, to the amount oil
$40 40.
Court opened at 10 O'Clock yesterday,
when the osss Of Buckingham Il Go.
: vs.. Elizabeth Murray's executor was re-
suIned. David L Buckingham was re
i, called, and gave further testimony in re
! gard to the charges against Elizabstt
Murray for goods furnished janet
: Murray.
The plaintiffs here rested, and Mr.
Bradford, for the defense, moved for {
. non suit on the erounG, mainly, that nj
delivery to Mira. Murray of the good
charged to her on account OF Jame
: Murray had been proved.
: The motion was argued at length We J
effectively by Mr.. Bradford, ard vigor
Ously opposed BY Mr.. Lore. Mr.. Bate
9 also argued at length for the non suit
! claiming that the order given by Eliza
beth Murray was not sufficient in itself Il
warrant the charging to her Of the good
, procured, as It did not specially authoriz
!, the charges to be so made. The argu
ment continued uptil 10 45 O'Clock, whei
!, court adjourned until O'Clock insths al
u ternoon.