Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1886-05-20

ground that while parties interested are
allowed to testify in these cases, they are
restricted as to giving testimony In regard
to the acts or declarations of the testators
The objections of the plaintiff were not
sustained, however, and the plaintiff noted
an exception.
At 1885 o'clock, court adjourned until
8 o'clock, p. m.
At the reassembling of court in the
afternoon the case Of Caleb II. Bradley
VS.. Benjamin Kent's executor was re-
sumed, with Lindley q. Kent on the
stand. He identified several notes, made
by him TO the order of his father, Benja-
min Kent, and also the endorsement of
the latter. They were offered in evidence
to show that the writing and signature of
Benjamin Kent were different from that
in the letter purported to be written by
him, acknowledging Caleb Bradley's
claim, and offered in evidence by the
plaintiff. Mr.. Kent also examined the
signature 10 this letter, and said he
thought 1t resembled his fathers sigma
ture only in very slight degree, being
larger and more regular than his father
was in the habit of writing.
| Daniel I'll. Kent said he did not know,
of his own knowledge, the terms upon
which his father and mother lived with
| Caleb Bradley. He knew, however, that
Mrs. Bradley was in delicate health, and
chat his mother waited on her. He also
said that he did not think the signature
of Benjamin Kent to Caleb Bradley's
| letter was his fathers handwriting. His
father and mother boarded with him for
about year, and paid SO per week each
| for their board
j. Simmons Kent was recalled and also
testified that he did not believe the sigma
ture to the Bradley letter was his fathers
writing.
The defence rested and the plaintiff
after submitting the will of Benjamin
Kent, called Mrs. White who said that in
her opinion the signature of the will and
| the signature to the letter to Caleb Brad
ley, submitted by the plaintiff, were both
written by Benjamin Kent.
| After lengthy discussion upon letter
which the plaintiff desired to introduce,
to show Benjamin Kent's acknowledge
ment of his Indebtedness to Caleb Bradley
to which the defence objected, the court,
at $40 o'clock, pending decision of the
point raised, adjourned until 10 o'clock
| yesterday morning.
| At the opening of court yesterday,
the case of Bradley VS.. Kent's executor
was resumed. Mrs. White, for the plain
tiff, was recalled and produced her mar
riage certificate, which bore the sigma
ture of Benjamin Kent as q witness. This
was offered in evidence and the plaintiff
closed.
Argument then began and, by agree
ment was limited to one hour on each
side, George III. Bates, Esq, opened for
the plaintiff. Mr.. Nields followed for the
defence, and MIR. Higgins closed for the
plaintiff. Argument was concluded at
1920 o'clock, when the court discharged
the jury until o'clock this afternoon,
when the charge will be delivered.
A jury was then drawn in the case of
Samuel d. Forbes VS.. ex-Sherif James
Martin, action of replevin. William @.
Spruance, Esq, for plaintiff and Thomas
Davis and Benjamin Nields, Esqs., for
defendant. Mr.. Spruance, in opening to
the jury, said the case rested on the
seizure by the sheriff of hub lathe, o
spoke lathe and teneting machine,
| with fixtures, which were levied upon as
the property of Forbes IL Banks (William
Forbes and Robert Banks), but which
were the actual property of the plaintiff,
Samuel d. Forbes. He said the machines
were loaned to Forbes q Banks by Samuel
d. Forbes, when the firm went into bust
ness. The machinery mentioned was re-
pleyined by Samuel ID. Forbes, the owner
thereof.
AT the conclusion of Mr.. Spruance's
opening court adjourned until O'Clock
in the afternoon.