Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1885-10-01

I 6fAAfaNfN oA<soNcNs
The entire evening session was occt
pied by IN argument ON the motion for
rule on the Delaware a Atlantic Telephon
Company to show cause why writ Q
mandamus should not be issued compel
ling it to place telephone in the offic
of the Baltimore a Ohio Telegraph Com
pany in this city.
n. G. Bradford Esq, of counsel 70
the telephone company, argued that tn
motion should be denied, on the grount
that MS the Baltimore d Ohio Telegraph
Company is a corporation chQrtered to d,
business in the state of Maryland, ant
authorized by it's charter to construct
lease or own telegraph lines in that statt
alone,it has no rights in the courts of thit
State. He claimed that the telegraph
company's charter did not grant or at.
tempt to grant any power to carry on
business outside the state of Maryland,
and no corporation can possess any
powers excepting those conferred by It's
charter, nor can any state authorize any
corporation to transact business in an
| other state.
In support of his argument Mr.. Brad
ford cited numerous authorities. He
contended that writ of mandamus was
an extraordinary procedure, and only to
be used where the ordinary process of
law will not avail. The true function of
writ of mandamus is the remedy of the
abuse of n franchise granted by the State,
but in u case like this, where the relator
has no franchises granted by the State, no
writ of maldamus can be issued, and one
would be highly improper. He contended
that this State had not conferred
upon the relators any powers,
but il could compel it to obey the laws,
and il it did not obey the laws it would
be subject to quo-warranto to compel il
to show by what authority it does bust
ness i'll the State. Thus, while il il
amenaLle to the law, it cannot be rcncheU
by writ of mandamus. lie cluimed
that the State hud never conferred any
power ON the relator. Its obligations nre
not to the State but to the individuals
who employ it, and while il is liable to
be sued by them for failure to per form
this duty, it cannot be reached by writ
of mandamus.
MIR. Bradford spoke until 9.40 O'Clock,
when court adjourned until 10 o'clock
Friday morning.
At the opening of court, Friday morn
ing, the case of George Brown, colored,
charged with an attempt to commit a
felonious assault upon Ellen Truitt of
New Castle, was resumed, and the State
called several witnesses who testified to
the assault.
The defense presented no evidence, the
case was submitted without argument,
and Mt 10.45 o'clock the jury retired.
Argument in the telephone case was
then resumed, Mr.. Bird, for the Baltimore
& Ohio Telegraph Company, arguing at
length in favor of the motion for rule to
show cause why a writ of mandamus
should not be issued compelling the tele-
phone company to place one of its tele-
phone instruments in the b. IL o. tele.
graph Office in this city. He
argued the liability of the telephone
company as common carrier, under
which it is required to serve all who arc
willing to comply with its conditions and
pay its tolls, and held that the right of
both companies to do business in this
State, under charters from other states
was guaranteed as long as they were not
prohibited by the laws of this State. Mr..
Bird spoke until l. .15 o'clock, when court
took recess until p. M.
AT 11.50 o'clock the jury in George
Browns case returned with verdict Of
guilty, and was discharged from any
further attendance at this term. II is
understood that the jury took but one
ballot, which was unanimous tor verdict
| of guilty.
At the afternoon session of court
| George Brown, colored, convicted
of assaulting Ellen Truitt of New Castle,
with intent to commit an outrage, was
sentenced to pay q fine of 5000 and costs
| of prosecution, stand ono hour in the
pillory and be whipped with 30 lashes on
Saturday, October Sd, and be imprisoned
one year.
Argument in the mandamus case was
then resumed, E. G. Bradford, Esq, for
the telephone company, arguing against
the mandamus. He spoke until O'Clock,
and the court held the matter under ad-
Yi5ement
The balance of the afternoon was occu-
pied in an argument on the demurrer of
the defense in the case of the Farmers
Bank VS.. II. L. Tatnall. The action is
on notes to the amount of $11 200, on
which H. L. Tatnall was guarantor for
III. L. Tatnall 4 Co., and the claim is set
forth that the notes were not discounted
within the proper time after the date of
his guarantee, seven months having elapsed
before the first discount was made. Ben
jamin Nields, Esq, defendants counsel,
argued until adjournment.
During the afternoon the sheriffs sale
of property belonging to @. II. Nc
Whorter was set aside, ON application of
Alexander B. Cooper, Esq., ON the ground
of inadequacy of price.
As soon as the superior court convened
Saturday morning Benjamin Nields, ESD,
opened his closing argument in the
demurrer of II. L. Iatnall, on the appli-
cation of the Farmers National Bank of
Delaware, to obtain Judgment on notes
amounting to $li 900, discounted for the
firm of III. l.. Iatnall a. Co. He concluded
his argument in so minutes, when the
court announced that il would hold the
matter for further consideration. Con-
siderable minor business wns then dis
posed of, which occupied the attention
of the court until IL. 10 o'clock, when the
court adjourned.
The following licenses for the sale of
liquor i'll this city were granted:
John McCaiferey.
Michael j. Sharkoy.
George +. Robinson.
Annie Wendler.
There were nine applications for license
made to the court, five Of which were
rejected.