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


The court refused to sustain Mr.. HIggins'
objection, and Mr.. Chamberlain described
the alley, to the use ri which, he said,
all the properties along Madison street
wr'e entitled.
Samuel MsyhHrt. who owns on Third
street adjoitiTs the ally, said the alley
was filed mp about year ago.
Christopher Doughsrsy from whom
Mr.. Flynn bought his property, said the
alley, four feet wide, ran at the rear Of
the lot at the time Of the sale. The slley
was paved by the property owners.
| James Monaghan said he has been IA
milisr with the property since the sale,
In 1868, when he bought lot; subse-
| quently he bought another. The alley
was there at the time, and remained until
Mr.. Finn filed II up 8 year ago. He
warned Mr.. Fiyln, who notified him Of
his intention, not to fill up the alley or
"there would be fight" But Mr..
Finn persisted 10 fitting mp the alley,
and extending his fence across II The
witness removed the distractions.
Patrick Monaghan, owner OF the prop.
erty At the southwest corner OF Fourth
and Madison streets, oorroborated the tes-
timony Of the previou witness, his
brother, in relation TO the alley and the
distinctions made by Mr.. Finn.
The defendants rested here, and the
plaintiff called John Finn, who said he
boAgbt his property from Christopher
Doughefty. He understood that the lot
was 100 feet deep, which was the depth
his deed called for, and he knew nothing
Of the alley until year ago, when he
proposed building on the back Of the lot.
This witness Is well known blind man,
who has lived for years In the vicinity OF
the property In dispute, and in his testi-
mouy he said he had been blind since
| 1856. He lost his sight and also sus-
tanned other injuries in railroad acci-
dent, during which the boiler Of the loco
motive exploded and he WAS enveloped
In cloud Of soaldipg steam.
Patrick Dillon said the damage caused
by the removal Of Flinn's fence by the
Mousghans was about &25.
The plaintiff here closed, and the case
was argued at length by Messrs. Rmmons
and Bates for the defendants and Messrs.
MoCaulley and Higgins for the plaintiff,
An evening session WAS held for the
Argument and the case will 60 the jury
yesterday morning.
At a Is O'Clock the Clayton, Soowdriok
| jury came into court with q verdict for
the plaintiff for 1852 rs. The Jury was
then discharged.
Imm' distely after shs opening Of court
yesterday morning, b Jury int etrespms
| case Of Finn Va. James and Patrick
Monaghan IVES charged by Judge
| Houston, and at 1920 O'Clock retired.
Aftsr an absence Of only five minutes the
| Jury returned with verdict tor tho
defendants Another case Of Finn va.
the Monaghans, dependent upon the
same testimony, Was abandoned.
A Jury was next drawn to try the case
Of the Trump Brothers Machine Company
vs James l. Branson, Hoffeoker &
Hofeoker for the plaiutiffs and Lore Il
Emmons for the defendant. This Is an
action to recover for storage and insurance
on number OF patent knitting machines
which the plaintiffs had manufactured
for the defendant, according to contract
entered into between the parties in 1879.
The case as stated to the jury
by ] Il Htfiacker, If, Esq
Ia as follows: some time in til.
year 1879 James L B.anson employed
the Trump Brothers Machine, Company
to maLufscture for him q number OF
knitting mRohints on which he heid
| patent. The agreement was broken b
Mr.. Bfspeon ~ the early part OF 1882
| when he refused to rgosivs plumber OF
the machines which tue plaintiffs Lad or
hand. They accordingly brought suit
ssainst him In Philadelphia l. the
United States circuit court, and reo0v
ered judsmen. for thu full amount Of
their Claim, about IS 900, In ooto
Der, 1888. They afterwards made
arrangements with Mr.. Branson
whereby he was TO be allowed
to remove the machines in instsllments,
paying for them as he took them away.
The day the last installment was shipped
the company preferred charge Of $3.50
against Mr.. Brnnson for storage, insur.
anoe and boxing. As he through his
attorneys refused TO pay this claim
foreign attachment was issued, and the
machines seized In the hands Of Charles
Warner & Co., the shippers, and this
suit Ia now brought to recover the
amount Of this claim.
Samuel N. Trump testified that he Is
the secretary and treasurer OF the Trump
Bfothers Machine Company and also a
member. He detailed the fact OF the con
tract bstwesn the company and the
defendant, and said that when the suit
was brought egsiust Ar. Byanson for
breach OF contract the company had
nearly 500 machines on hand vllued a.
about 50 900 aud they remaiued OIL their
pr misses for period Of II mopths willis
the su!t was pending Daring that
time they were put to con-
siderable inconvenience by the machines
being in the building, 40 they needed the
room for other purposes. 1t also took
considerable of their employe s' time. som
OF whom were paid q day, to Keep
these machines tree OF dust al dirt and
to prevent their being injured by ruet,
During the entire IL months they we're
not allowed to dispose OF or remove the
machines, as Mr. Bronson positively re.
fused to accept them until after be was
Obliged to do 80 by the judgment OF the
oourt,
Thomas J. Sullivan testified shat he is
an employe of the Trump Brothers Ma
chiDs Company a?d was present iii 1883
ahen Messrs Brlnton aud keruE, agents
for Mr. B'ansOu, came to tie works of the
Trump Brothers Machine Company 90 eX
anime the machines ON baud, but after
looking at them where they stood ard
were packed Left them sloae With the re-
mark that it wouid reqaire 10 .ere fisld
to spread them out in. He alsO TESTIFIED
that rot less than one fourth Of the shop
was taken up with the machines
Du'ipg the progress OF the trial one Of
the shifting machines was fastened to
the jury box and operated for the edii
cation Of the court and jury. It is an
ingenious pieos Of mechanism end tte
operations were much admired.
AT 10 o'clock court adjourned until 3
p. m
ACCIDEhTaLLk SHOT.