Delaware gazette and state journal., 1884-05-29

Ssntmsn was called 70 the stand, and his
testimony was mainly oorroborative OF the
testimony given by his partner, Jesse
u. Cornelius.
| Thomas X. Lslly, Esq q notary public,
testified TO witnessing the execution OF
the deeds by Cornelius & Seminar to Mrs.
Hartman. The deeds were left at his
Office by Mr.. Forbes, as he understood,
and he took them.
The defense here rested, and the plain
tiff, Samuel d. Forbes, took ths stand.
In response to the Inquiries tf Mr.. Hot
fecker, before he was sworn, hs answered
after some hesitation, that he believed in
the existence Of Supreme Being and in
future state OF punishments and re
wards. He WAS then sworn, and testified
that the name Of Mrs. Maria Hartman,
As grantee, was in the deeds signed by
Cornelius & Sentman when he drew
them, and that he had not the least
interest In the transfer of the property to
her. He said he mads no bargain
with Cornelius & Sentman for the
man. He purchased the mortgage from
daorge W. May, for q onsideratton o.
", CAS- 80, paying for IT with another
|
Mrs. Hartman, however, before he bought
the mortgage. He said he made no
bargain with Cornelius & Sentman in
regard to the purchase OF the property.
The witness was rigidly oross. examined
by Mr.. Hoffeoker, and though somewhat
u,ixed up at times, he did not impeaoh
his direct testimony.
Mrs. Maria G. Hartman WAS called, and
said she made all arrangements for the
purchase of the property with Mr.. Cor.
nelius. As consideration she gave a
note for $50, and an obligation to indem
| nily Cornelius & Sentmsn against a suit
made by aMr. Duncan against them. She
said she bought the property on her own
behalf and nobody else had any interest
in. 1t. She finished the houses,
paying for the work with her
own money, and has managed
the property, solely and entirely on her
own behalf, ever since she obtained pos.
session of it, She said in response to Mr..
| Sprusnoe's Inquiries, that although She
was the owner of the land, and, prson.
| cally, defendant in the suit, she WAS
making no defense to the suit upon the
mortgage. To Mr.. Hofeoker, she said
that, under the circumstance she did
not want to pay the mortgage, and was,
therefore, willing TOR the foreclosure.
Judgments against Cornelius x Sent
man in favor of Forbes, amounting to
$500, the mortgage held by Forbes, and
mechanics liens against the property in
question, amounting to 1880, were
offered in evidence by Mr.. Spruanos and
the osss then cloaed.
Mr. Spruanoe made his opening ad-
dress to the jury and spoke until
8 O'Clock, when court adjourned until 10
o'o ock Tuesday morning.
At the opening of court Tuesday morning
Mr.. Spruance resumed his argument for the
plaintiff III the case OF Forbes vs. Cornelius
y Sentman. He spoke until IL o'clock, when
MIR. Hofecker followed for the defendants
and spoke about 20 minutes, and Mr.. Spruance
closed. Chief Justice Comegys then charged
the jury, aud they retired at IL. 40 o'clock.
Tue case Of Charles Green VI. John
Maloney was taken up for trial and jury
drawn,
The plaintiff was represented by Anthony
Higgins and Walter Hayes, Esqs., anu tho
defendant by Bradford Vandegrift.
This il snit to test the validity of bond
given in May 1881, by the defendant to the
plaintiff, the facts Of which are HI follows
Charles Green Keeps grocery store at Rock
land, and Maloney, who had been customer
for some time, owed him a bill for groceries
as his credit was not consid rsd
good, Green refused to allow Aln
to have any more goods unless he would
sign bond empowering him to c.l est
Maloney's wages at the mill where he WORKED
and this bond for 562l was then drawn up
and signed, 80 it Is alleged, by Maloney
Some time afterwards, MalOuey denied sign
ing the bond and suit il now brought to test
the validity OF the instrument and the sigma
ture.
Edward b. Conner, a clerk in Green's store
testified to signing the bond as a witness, but
could not tell the exact time when he did 30.
He thought he had signed the paper at
Green's request, but had no recollection of
having seen Maloney sign il.
Jacob Underwood testified that he was in
the store the night the bond was signed and
heard Green read it. Maloney was present
but the witness did not see him sign it. After
1t was read, Green, Connor and Maloney were
ut desk behind the counter, and Green had
pen in his hand.
lho witness was cross examined by MIR.
Bradford and when he closed at 1 o'clock
court took recess until o'clock in the after
noon.
Court reconvened after the recess at 8
O'Clock in the afternoon with Chief Justice
Comegys, and Associates Wootten and Hous-
ton on the bench. The Green .Maloney case
was resumed, and the examination Of wit
nesses for the plaintiff proceeded with,
John Muir testified that abont two years
and Il half ago, he went to Green's store to
take back knife that he had been repairing
for a man named Underwood. He saw Green,
Maloney, Conner and some others in the
store, and heard Green read the bond to
Maloney, who was accompanied by his
daughter.
Ihv bond was for something over $1,000,
and the witness was surprised that Maloney
should owe such large bill for groceries, but
was informed by one OF those present that it
was for double the amount of the debt.
Stephen Sharpley WAS sworn, and testified
that some time in the latter part OF April,
1891. he was IN Green's store one evening.
and saw Green, Maloney and Conner behind
the counter talking. Green read paper to
Maloney, but the witness did not know what
it related to, but he heard Maloney say that
he was satisfied. The whole party then went
to the desk, aud all of them signed the
paper.
James w. Green testified that he il u
brother to the plaintiff. and was in his store
the night that Maloney signed the bond
Ho saw him go up stairs with his BROTHER
and when they came down Alaloney made hiA
mark on the bond, and the witness brother
wrote his name for him. Conner signed the
bond ~ witness, and his brother also signed
it, The witness told his brother afterwards
that be should have had some one else
besides Conner on the bond, as he would be
apt in the case OF any trouble, to forget that
he had ever signed it, The witness is
butcher, and had used some of the same kind
of notes himself.
William II. Russum was sworn and stated
that while he was at Rockland in October,
1881, in search OF work, he was asked by
Charles Green to serve an attachment on
Maloney's employer, for him to pay the
wages to Green. He read the paper over
but when he went to the place he found that
he could not read it all over again, and Green
finished it. Maloney was present at the time
and said that II MIR. Green would let up on
him he would pay him in q little time. He
also asked HIM not to talk so loud az he did
not wish the other men to hear what was
said. On cross examination, the witness
said that he did not recoect telling Maloney
that he was a constable.
Thomas Gillin testified that he is deputy
sheriff and gave Green permission to serve
the writ
Joshua Foster testified that he knows
Maloney by sight. but is we'll acquainted with
Green. He heard Maloney tell Green in the
fall OF 1881 that il he did not push him for
the money during the winter, he would, as
soon as spring opened, and he and his boy
got to work, pay him certain amount each
month, until it was all settled.
William Russell WAS sworn and testified that
he resided near Rockland some two years ago,
and was i'll Green's store one evening when
Maloney was there talking to Green, and the
witness heard him say that he would pay
Green all he owed him.
Robert AlcClntock testified that he il
acquainted with Charles Green the plaintiff,
| and frequently visited his store. One evening
about two years ago, while he WAS there,
| Maloney came in and asked Green to let HIM
have some more goods, which the latter
| refuaed to do. unless he would make some