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


gave it to his brother-in-law, who used il
for soare-crow.
Officer William H. Shearer testified 10
paying for his suit and obtaining 10.
ceipt for the payment. He had since lost
the receipt.
Officer James McKendrick said he paid
the balance of $3.50 early in 1888 and
obtained receipt in full. He had lost
the receipt
Sergeant George T. Hatton said he ten
dered the balance of $3.50 due on his
suit, but Mr.. Diefendorf refused to
| accept it.
Officers Edward B. Morrison, Joseph
Osborne, Alvan Fl. Townsley, Frank
Tibbett, William Il. Walker, William L.
Heal, John Quincy Adams and Joseph X.
Vickers gave similar testimony. The
reason for refusal given by Mr.. Diefendorf
was that he held the mayor responsible,
and that he would not take the money UNI
less the men accepted receipts on the
mayors account, which they would not
do. With this testimony the defense closed.
For the Plaintiff, John L. Klett cutter
for Diefendorf d Co., in 1882, said all the
suits were made from the goods selected
by Mayor Wales. Several of the suits
that did not fit were altered, and in one
or two instances new suits were made.
Mr.. Diefendorf was recalled, and said
he had no recollection of Officers Shearer
and McKendrick ever paying him any
money. Officer Moore's receipt was made
out on account of Mayor Wales.
This closed the case. Mr.. Macallister
wanted to submit it without argument.
MIR. Bird declined, and Mr.. Macallister
occupied about Is minutes in his open
ing. Then at 10 O'Clock court adjourned
until 8 o'clock.
Jeremiah Williams, who, last week, was
found guilty of the larceny of so cigars,
| five pipes and six collar buttons from
Martha Harnett, was brought into court
at the opening of the afternoon
session, and sentenced Us follows: To
pay costs of prosecution and 81 .85 resti-
tuition money, receive 10 lashes next
and be imprisoned three months.
The case of Diefendorf Il Co. VS.. Mayor
Wales was then resumed and Mr.. Bird
addressed the jury for the defendant,
| arguing that DIR. Wales WINS not at all re-
sponsible for the uniforms ordered by the
police. Mr.. Macallister followed with n
brief address of five minutes duration,
| and then the Char e WAS delivered by
Chief Justice CJnegys. He said the
| entire question ut issue was, to whom did
Diolendorf IL Co. give credit when the
| clothing was ordered-to the mayor or to
the police This question the jury would
have to determine.
At $50 the Jury retired.
The case of Martha @. Stinmell vs.
Samuel Brown was next taken up. Benja-
min Nields, ESD, for plaintiff and Hon.
George Gray for defendant. This is II
suit for damages, in which it was alleged
that the plaintiff owned n house and lot
GU the east side of jefferson street be-
tween Eighth and Ninth (No. S20), which
was about four feet above the grade of
the street. Brown owned the adjoining
lot on the north, and in digging so us TO
bring his lot down to the proper grade,
he dug SO close to the line that Mrs
Stimmell's fence, which ran along the
alley leading to her house, fell down, and
the alley caved in, rendering the alley
useless and deprecinting the value of the
property. BY being deprived of the
alley a drain had to be laid under the
house Mt n cost of $50. The damage was
committed in October, 1882.
Mrs. Stimmell was called to the stand
and testified to the extent of the damage
caused by the excavations made by Brown
She said the condition in which the alley
was left diminished the rental value of
the property at least SS75 per year.
f. Ii. Robinson, chief engineer of the
city surveying department, testified to
making plot of the premises of Mrs.
Stimmell and Samuel Brown, and ex-
planned their location.
At the conclusion of his testimony the
jury, Mt 5.55 O'Clock, was discharged until
10 o'clock Friday morning.
Immediately afterwards the Diefendorf-
Wales jury came into court and an
nounced disagreement, with no posi-
bility of coming to a conclusion. The
| chief justice said there was an arrange
ment between counsel for q compromise
of the case in the event of disagreement
of the jury, and though it was bad pre-
| cedent to discharge jury so soon, under
the circumstances the court would do so.
The jury was then discharged from
further attendance, the time of service of
the first panel being at an end, and court
then adjourned until 10 o'clock Friday
morning.