Daily Republican., 1886-02-03
through At Last.
THE EVIDENCE In THE BIND
ER CASE CORCLUDED YES.
TERDAY AFTERNOON.
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.

Court re convened at 4 o'clock yesteI-
day afternoon with all the Judges pres
enJ, Immediately after the opening
the case Of d. NJ. Osborne d Co. vs.
Joshua O. Richards was resumed.
Edmund Smith, who was on the
stand when Court adjourned at noon,
was recalled, and stated that when he
went 70 Mr.. Richards place on July 5th,
he found the machine working ell
right, and one Of the sons told him that
the machine worked all right but his
father and the others did not under
|s:and it.
Cn croes-examiuation he said that he
was employed by Mr.. Strickland, who
had an agency fOs The Osborne ma
chimes, aud that IL was part Of his
duty to 20 around and put the machine
up.
Lewis Goodyear was sworn, and testi-
fed that he heard Henry Richards say
that the reason the binder was not sold
at the sale, was because he had bought
his fathers interest 10 it, and intended
to take 1t to Kent County, Delaware,
with him. When asked how he liked
it, he said IL was first rate and said it
WAS as good q machine as there was in
the market, for any one who knew
how to run 1t.
Wesley Jenney was sworn, and
shown copy Of the Cecil Wing, and
said that he put the advertisement of
Joshua @. Richards sale in the paper
just as 1t was handed 60 him by Mr..
Richards and one Of his sons. The
| witness added the name of the auction
eer and his own rs clerk.
On cross-examination, he said that to
II tho haat nf hiu rAanllontinn ho 1fh nnf
make any other changes in the manu-
script, as the composition and hand
writing were good ne was certain that
he had not written the words about the
binder being in coed order.
Bartholomew Collins testified that In
1882-83, he lived on farm adjoining
Mr.. Richards, and could see them work
ing IN their wheat field from his house
He was in the field in 1882, when they
were using the Osborne binder, and aI
he had never seen one of them work b,
walked around with tine machine. Th'
wheat was very dry, and should hav'
been cut a week before, but the machine
worked very nicely; IL tied the sneaves
but the heads would catch together.
The witness was in the field for 81
, hour, more or less, and during tina
/, time could not see any defect In tn
machine. There was also a Champion
| machine in the field, and the Osborn
I done fully as good work as 1t.
This closed for the defense, and MI
. Higgins recalled David H. Richards
when Mr.. Lore objected, and contr }
versy ensued between counsel, whic
ended by the Court deciding that tn
witness could answer Mr.. HigginI
r rIquestion.
After asking him one or tive que
a tions in rebuttal, he was allowed
take his seat, and counsel on both sid
announced thsy had no more witnesse
THE Court stated that counsel ON eaC
a side would be limited to one hour
4 argument.
v Harry Emmons, Esq, commence
q the argument for the plaintiffs at
n O'Clock, and, after speaking flftet
a minutes, was followed by Francis 4
n Walker. Esq, for tho defendant. E
II concluded his argument at O. 80 o'clocl
4 when Anthony Higgins, ESQ.,, con
menced the closing argument for Il
l. defendant, and when he concluded WI
! followed by Mr.. Lore, who made Il
.Iclosing argument for the plaintiff
nj When he concluded, Court adjourn
q until 10 O'Clock this morning.