Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1885-12-03

Arguments im shc Cnse OF Theodore
Es Rocker, Charged with Ihc Mur-
der OF Horace A.. Mcdiimuls-A-.Ak d.
daHeANeS bv Nigga. sam horn nnd lsHrd


Esq., counsel for plaintiff in the case OF
Joseph Billings vs.. Augusta 81, Billings,
libel for divorce, presented the return of
William T. Lyman, Esq, commissioner
to take testimony In the CAGE, in favor OF
granting the divorce. He made the usual
motion for an absolute divorce.
Mr.. Lore, representing Mrs. Billings,
said he would take exceptions to the re-
turn and bring the matter before the
court. The case was fixed for Saturday.
In the case Of Edward Forrest vs. Annie
A. Forrest, libel for divorce. Mr.. Lore,
counsel for the respondent, said he would
ask for rule to snow cause why certain
sums Of money had been expended by the
libellant, and why alimony should not be
allowed during the peniency of the suit
The rule was made returnable on Sstur-
day.
Anthony Higgins, ESQ.,, presented the
return of Francis M. Walker, Esq, CON-
missioner in the divorce case of Daniel
W. Edgecomb vs.. Kate H. Edgecomb, in
favor of granting the divorce.
On the application of Harry Sharpley,
Esq, counsel for the plaintiff in Pussy P.
Brown vs.. Neal Duffy, the case was con-
tinued until next term, on account of the
hbnouco vi U lhitbcIlhl Witubbb.
Mr.. Higgins applied for continuance
In the case of Howard e. Dubois VS.
Forbes d Banks, because his client was
obliged to go away from the city, to be
absent some time, Thomas Davis, Esq, for
the defendant, objected, as they had been
ready for trial last term and this. The
application was refused.
As the term of the first panel jurors ex-
PRED Friday, all excepting those
engaged in the pending case of Valentine
vs.. Tantum were discharged from further
attendance at this term of court,
The case Of Valentine vs.. Tantum was
then resumed with DIR. Tantum on the
+ stand. He testified that Engle Valentine
contracted with him TO work the farm at
300 per year, and exhibited receipts for
the settlement of all transactions between
them. He said he lost over 81 900 by
fooling with the farm. Subsequently
Mrs. Valentine expressed regret for his
losses, and said he had been the best
friend they ever had. The witness was
subjected to long cross examination,
during which he gave in detail the
amounts he had paid Valentine during
the latter's occupancy of the farm.
Percy L. Tantum, son of the previous
witness, testified to Mrs. Valentine beg
ging his father to buy in the things at
the sale and promising to pay him back
in few weeks with the money she ex-
peeted to get from down the State.
/ Miss Ida Tantum, daughter of the de-
PENDANT, said during the time the Yalen-
tines were on the farm, her mother gave
Mrs. Valentine two dresses, valued at So
and 81, and some underwear. On Tues
day evening, November 10th, Mrs. Valen-
tine spoke of one of the dresses and said
abe was wearing it yet. She had heard
Mrs. Valentine soy she would not have
pushed this case but for Mr.. Bird, who
said If she did not he would push it him
self, and also that DR.. Tantum was her
best friend, and the case must be settled.
Witness further said that all reproduce
delivered at the house WAS carefully listed
and the records given to DIR. Tantum to
note in his book. On CROSS examination
Miss Tantum said her father had said he
had called upon Mrs. Valentino, with a
view TO effect settlement. She and her
mother also called upon Mrs. Valentine
to see why the case had not been settled.
Adam O, Benson, colored, who was
goodman for DIR. Tantum from 1876 TO
1879, testified to going out to the farm in
the fall of 1879 to lesye the horse he was
taking out and get another, the Lucy
mare. Mr.. and Mrs. Valentine refused
to allow him to take the mare, and the
former swore about it, saying the doctor
wished to get his (yalentine's) horse.
r. DIR. Tantum was recalled and said dur
ing the time the Valentines were on the
farm he made no objection to them using
all the products they needed for their
subsistence. He said Mr.. Bird asked him
what he would give TO settle the present
case. He also said that within two
months he asked Mr. Bird what could be
done to settle the case.
The defense here rested.
MIR. Bird asked if he could call the hus-
band of the plaintiff, to testify in regard
to the circumstances under which he
signed the agreements with DIR. Tantum.
The request was refused.
The plaintiff then called DIR. j. F.
Frantz, who stated in relation to the last
article of agreement that Engle Valentine
signed il mechanically, without reading,
on il being presented to him by DIR. Tan
tum, in the latter's easy, plausible way,
No remarks were made by Valentine OF
the doctor in relation to the subject-mat
ter of the agreement He saw Engle sigr
the other agreements, but took no partic'
ular note Of the circumstances.
George Dyson was recalled and said
DR.. Tantum had told him he need. moi
give the Valentines notice to get off the
farm, as they were no more than his hired
servants.
The plaintiff here closed, and at 8. 81
o'clock court adjourned until 10 o'clocl
Saturday morning.
The superior court 'eaasembled at II
o'clock Friday morning, Chief Justic'
Comegys end judges Wootten and Hous
ton on the bench. The roll of the secont
panel of Jurors was called.
Harry Sharpley, ESD, presented thu
return of Henry r.. Pennington, ESD. com
missioner to take testimony in the case o
Sarah A. Goodwin VS.. John 3. Goodwin
libel for divorce. The return recon
mended the granting of an absolute di
yoroe, the petitioner to be allowed tn
full custody of the three children durinI
their minority. The return was accepte,
and the divorce granted.
The case of Valentine vs.. Tantum wa
resumed, and Andrew e. Sanborn, ESQ
who is associated with Mr.. Bird in tn
case, made the opening address to tn
jury on behalf of the plaintiff. He spok
for as minutes, in an elaborate presents
ton of the plaintiffs case, critically an
alyzed the evidence adduced, and mad
an effective plea for the jury to award t
the plaintiff the money she claimed wa
Justly due her for services rendered d.
Tantum during his possession of the fari
upon which she lived.
Harry Emmons, Esq, followed for th
defense, arguing that the plaintiff had n
lust claim for anything at the hands {
DIR. Tantum, who had already suffered
loss of over 81 900 by his connectio
with the farm. He made an effectiy
argument of over an hours duration.
Mr.. Lore, for the defendant, followe
and spoke until l o'clock, when cou
took recess until o'clock, p. IN.
At the opening OF court in the afte
noon, the discharge of Thomas Callowa
colored, prisoner in the county jail. WI
ordered, on the application OF Hair
sbarpley, Esq. He was sentenced to
this term 10 days imprisonment for carr
ing. concealed deadly weapons, and the Ter
had expired, but he had no money to p'
his costs,
As no Jury trials are taken up on Satu
DAYS the general jury was discharged UNI
40 O'Clock Monday morning, as were oil
the witnesses In the various pending case
Mr.. Lore then resumed his argument I
the defendant in the case of Valentine
Tantum, making strong and eifecti
plea, and spoke for 80 minutes. He tn,
nsked the court to charge the jury upon q
following points:
i. That the property claimed as 'exem
Mt the sale of the Valentine effects cannot
considered In this case, us 1t was the pro
erty of the husband, and not OF the plalnti
q. That the plaintiff cannot recover
x,yorlr and lahor and Mt the same time u