Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1885-05-28
suPERIOR COURT.


The case Of the Minneapolis Harvester
Company vs.. Alfred P. Crockett, was re
sumed when court reassembled at {
o'clock yesterday afternoon week.
A. II. Woodward was recalled and said
Mr.. Crockett called on him after harvest
and said the binder suited very well
except that it did not cut wide enough
swath. Crockett offered him $50 if lac
would take the binder back, but the Offer
was refused. Afterwards he demanded
settlement, but Crockett refused to settle.
M. A. ]. Springer of the firm of A. II.
woodward d Co., also testified as 10
Crocketts request to have the machine
taken of his hands and his refusal Ia
settle. Samuel Maree, a salesman for the
firm, gave corrobative testimony.
The plaintiff here rested and MIR. Biggs
for the defense, called MIR. Crockett, the
defendant, who testified that he did NOT
agree to buy the binder from Agent LOT
land, but simply took it for trial, with
the distinct understanding that he was
not to be held responsible. The machine
cut as well as any he ever saw, but was O
poor binder. When he was through he
asked Mr.. Lohand what he should dc
with the machine, and Lohand told him
he had returned it as sold, but said he
would take it back for $40. Witness
offered him 800. Afterwards in talking
TO Mr.. Woodward, he asked the latter il
he would accept $50 to take the machine
back and settle the case.
Harry Crockett and Courtland Crockett
SONS of the defendant, testified that the
machine broke while it was being tried.
Also that they heard their father tell Mr..
Lohand he was not going TO buy O
new machine, as he could make his old
ones do.
Alfred Il. Mcguire testified that lac
drove the machine for Mr.. Crockett, and
that it frequently broke the binding
cords.
The defense here rested
The plaintiff recalled Mr.. Springer
who said Mr.. Crockett had told him the
machine bound all right. On cross
examination he said Mr.. Crockett did moi
use the word "bind," but referred gen.
orally TO it working in satisfactory man.
ner, which he inferred included the bind.
ing.
The case was then submitted with q
brief charge from the court TO the effect
that the only issue involved was merely q
question of fact, whether or not Mr.
Crockett bought the machine. At 4.55
O'Clock the jury retired, and, after de.
liberating 25 minutes returned with 0
verdict for the defendant.
Another jury was ut once drawn to try
the case of John W. Diefendorf IL Co. vs.
John p. Wales, mayor of Wilmington;
action TO recover bill for uniforms made
for policemen, amounting to $137.50.
s. A. Macallister, Esq, for plaintiffs, and
Levi G. Bird, Esq, for defendant.
In his opening Mr.. Macallister said
that in June, 1882, DIR. Wales, having
been elected mayor, went to the store of
Diefendorf Il Co., and contracted for
uniforms for the policemen,i1 in number,
at $15 each, which were made and deliv.
cred. One of the policemen paid for his
uniform at delivery and was given re.
ceipt on account. Subsequently the chief
of police paid $4G2.50, but the balance
of the bill was not paid. Demand was
made ON the mayor and payment refused,
hence the suit.
John w. Diefendorf snid Mayor Wales
called on him on the 18th of June, 1882,
and said he wanted to have his police
force uniformed in military manner,
with all suits alike, and asked him what
he would make them for. He agreed &c
make them for $l5 each, and the offer was
accepted by the mayor. He said he TOOK
the order solely ON the responsibility OF
Mayor Wales, and not on the response.
bility of the men who came TO be
measured.
Mr.. Diefendorf, being asked for his
original book of entry, produced small
pass.book, in which the charges for these
uniforms and no others were entered. He
said in all cases where number Of uni
forms for military companies or Other
organizations were ordered he entered
them in small books of this kind.
Mr.. Bird objected to accepting the
book MS book of original entry. The
objection was not sustained and the bool
was admitted.
Mr. Diefendorf then testified to receiv
ing $15 from policeman and $462.5t
from Chief of Police Hawkins. He mp
piled TO the mayor for the balance and
the mayor disclaimed any responsibility
in the matter.
In cross-examination Mr.. Defender
said he made few police uniforms fol
members of Mayor Almonds force, bu
not ut the mayors order. They wer,
contracted for by one of the men. II,
never before or since made uniforms fol
the entire force. He insisted that lie re
ceived no money except from the chic
and one policeman whom he gave 70
ceipts ON account of the mayor, and tina
he looked to the latter for payment.
At @ o'clock court adjourned until II
o'clock Thursday morning.
The superior court opened Mt 10 o'clocl
Thursday morning, and after hearing tw'
applications for continuance of cases on tn
trial list, the case of Diefendorf Il Go. VS.
Mayor Wales was resumed. Nelson r
Bertolette WINS called and testified that il
June, 1882, while he was in the emplo.
of Diefendorf IL Co., he was requested b,
Mr.. Diefendorf to show Mayor Wales
sample of police uniform coat which h
did. Subsequently he called ON DIR. Vale
to collect the balance of the bill due TO
the police uniforms. He also assisted il
delivering the uniforms to the police.
City Treasurer Milton s. Shippers wa
called, and identified three checks allowe'
by City Council for the payment TO
police clothing, and drawn TO the orde
of Mayor Wales. Mr.. Bird objected T.
their admission. Two of the checks, on
drawn for the payment for the clothe
first ordered, and one drawn to pny TO
the second installment of clothes none
allowed the police were admitted an
Mr.. Mncallister Withdrew the third. Di
Wales was then called, and said he re
ceived the money on the checks. Tn
plaintiffs here rested.
The defense called Mayor Wales, VIII
said that in his arrangement with Diefen
dorf Il Co. he asked if they could max
the uniforms for the policemen by Jul
LIST, and give them credit until the polio
clothing money was allowed by Git
Council. Mr.. Diefendorf said the suit
could be made by July list, and that Ii
was perfectly willing to give the men til
desired credit lie did not consider hin
self responsible, us the city allow
each policeman $50 per year for clothes
payable semi-annually. Further o
Mayor Wales said that when he receive
the first check for clothing money,
October, 1882, he drew the money M
handed il over to Chief of Polit
Hawkins. The second check, drawn
December, he endorsed to Hawliin
order and turned over to him.
Ex-Chief Hawkins testified TINT he tol
the policemen that Diefendorf ~ q
would make their suits for $l5 apiece al
wait for the money until the cloth
money was allowed They then WEI
down and got measured. The men PM
$3.50 each and declined to pay Al
more because the clothes were not mat
according to contract. Witness said h
coat and vest We're all right, but h
pantaloons were made of some cote
flannel stuff and not of the piece the
were to be made from.
On cross examination, ex- Chief Iuwkil
aoid he went down to nav the balan