Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1885-11-26


animal. Il was not reasonable TO suppose
that II the horse had been ringboned and
spawned, as the plaintiff represented, the
defendant would have given such a
warranty as claimed. The testimony OF
the plaintiff was of itself sufficient to dis
prove any intention of fraud or deceit
and, therefore, he would ask that nom
suit be granted.
The motion was held under advisement
and at few minutes before 9 o'clock
court adjourned until Tuesday morning,
The superior court reconvened at 10
o'clock, Tuesday morning, with Chief
Justice Comegys and Judges Wootten and
Houston on the bench.
In the horse case of Thomas William
son VS.. Edward G.. Yetter, the court over
ruled the motion for o nonsuit, made by
Mr.. Lore for the defense. Mr.. Lore then
addressed the jury, claiming that there
had been no deceit practised by the de-
PENDANT in selling the horse to the plain
tiff ; that the animal was not lame when
sold, and was subsequently injured by
being thrown while being shod; and that
the plaintiff afterwards tried to sell the
animal to other parties, representing that
it was sound in every particular.
Mr.. Yetter, the defendant was then
called to the stand, and detailed the cir
cumstances Of the sale, by him,o horse
to the plaintiff, Williamson. He claimed
that the horse was perfectly sound at the
time of the sale, and some time afterwards
Williamson came to his place with the
horse, driving up the road OF rapid
pace. On this occasion he said he was
perfectly satisfied with the horse and
would not take 5000 for it. The note
given for the horse was paid at maturity
without any complaint. AT the time Of
the sale the horse was but three years old
and had not been broken to harness.
Edward French, who kepta cigar and re-
refreshment store at "Hammer and Tro-
WELL" in Toughkenamon, Pa, where Mr..
Yetter boarded at the time of the horse
sale, said that Williamson and his father
came and got the horse while Yetter was
away, and left with him note for 1925
in payment, which he delivered to Yetter.
He did not notice any lameness about the
horse at this time, and made no repre-
sensations about the animal. The
| Williamsons seemed to think the horse
| was q little lame in one fore leg, but they
took it away oil the same. He afterwards
heard Williamson say he must have been
mistaken about the horses lameness.
| On REORGANIZATION the witness was
| questioned closely by Mr.. Bates in regard
| to what he sold at the store. He said he
| dispensed cider, sarsaparilla and mineral
water, but stated positively that he never
sold any Intoxicating liquor He drew
up the note with which the horse was
| paid for, and both the Williamsons signed
| It, saying that if this arrangement did not
prove satisfactory to Yetter when he came
home they would make it all right with
| him.
| Ellis Kinsey said that shortly after the
sale he saw Williamson taking the horse
to the blacksmith shop, and noticed it
was lame. Williamson said the lameneHs
was caused by the horse striking its foot
on stone. Afterwards he saw William
son driving the horse along the road, but
noticed no signs of lameness. Some men
came around the neighborhood in August
1882, looking for horses, and Williamson
authorized him to sell the horse for $160
or $140 if he could get no more.
4 DR.. B. f. Vandsver, veterinary sur
geon, said he knew the horse in question
from the time ii was sucking colt until
it was % years old. Afterwards saw it at
Mr.. Yetter'a, shout the 1st of April, 1882;
the animal was then perfectly sound.
Next saw the horse being driven along
the Lancaster pike, near the Kaolin
works, by the Williamsons. No lameness
was then visible. In October, saw the
horse in a field, near Hockessin, and
found 1t lame in one front leg, caused by
an enlargement of the pastern joint, eyi.
IDENTIFY produced by strain. There were
Il 40 avid anaao ~ ,rffrs bnpa
William Robinson, said that while going
to Cape May on the steamer Republic
about the 25th of August, 1882, Thomas
him of the Yetter mare for his horse, ani
recommended the mare to be perfectly
sound in all respects.
The defense here rested, the plaintiff
closed, the case was submitted withou
argument or charge of the court, ant
plaintiffs counsel gave the jury q state
ment Of the amount claimed, $20i.71 il
all. To this Mr.. Lore took exceptions
but court held that 1t made no difference
as the Jury would not be bound by it. A
1917 o'clock the jury retired, and a
1850 o'clock returned with q verdict TO
the plaintiff for $110.
The case of Mary j. Valentine vs. DR.
Joseph R. Tantum, was next called, Lev
O. Bird, ESD, for plaintiff and Lore 4
Emmons for defendant. This is simila
case to the one started Monday morn
ing, wherein Mrs. Valentine and her hus
band were plaintiffs, jointly, AM
is based on the same circum
stances then stated by Mr.. Bird. Mr.
Bird made his opening address +
the Jury and then called the plaintiff
Mrs. Mary Valentine, to the stand. Sh
said that the sale of their farm property
on September 18th, 1875, was attended b
at least $50 people. She described tn
property sold, and its value at the time
which, according to her estimate, wa
STAG. DR.. Tantum bought 1t all in 70
$450. She continued to live on the farr
} until December, 1879, when DR.. Tantur
} sent Constable Pritchett and several othe
men out to warn her and her husband O
, the farm and seize the property. Sh
sought legal advice and was advised t
, repievin the goods taken by DIR. Tantum
r but was unable to procure the require
. security. During the four years the
Q were on the farm she called at DR.. Tar
I tum's house twice q week, to delive
butter, eggs, vegetables and other farl
Y products, the value of which she est
7 mated at $3 per week during the entii
: term.
a At Ito O'Clock, pending Mrs. valeI
!. tines examination, court adjourned unit
8 o'clock, p. m.
At the reconvening of the superit
! court, in the afternoon, the case
Q Mrs. Mary Valentine VS.. DR.. Joseph
Tantum was resumed, with Mrs. Yalel
o tine on the stand. She testified to doin
9 all the woman's work on the farm durir
= the four years that DR.. Tantum he
n charge of it, and that she considered h,
n services to be worth at least 81 a weel
It During this time crops to the value
{. $500 were sold and the money paid
IS DIR. Tantum. She said she asked D
|, Tantum to come to the sale and buy Il
n property in for her, and he oonsente
His subsequent conversation all tend'
70 TO convey the idea and impression that
considered the property hers.
dj In detailing her ejectment Mrs. Vale
st tine said that on December 28th, 1877
d she was called on by William w. Pritchet
re DR.. J. F. Frantz, Percy Tantum, JOSEF
Wheeler and Barney Bradley, and
SO formed that she would have to leave t
le premises. She demurred, but DIR. Fran
IN produced an article of agreement, sign
by her husband, which she had new
ne seen or heard tell of until that da
er Pritchett said, MRS. Valentine, you W
have to CO." She replied, 81 will ha
ve 10 have time to get my things together
dc Pritchett said, 81 will allow you t
he hours.n Then she gathered togetf
he their few household articles and departt
be They had no advantage of any exempt
X. allowed by the law. Within tho p
en- three weeks, the witness further stat,
to Dr Tont,1m callad ,inon her in eOmpa