Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1886-12-10
SUPERIOR COURT
VERDICT AGAINST THE
CITY.
ID. n kent Allowed $3.50 Damaaes-A
Care About . Steam Thresh-
ing Machine.

ID. n Mont AtAoWed $3.50 DamnRes-A
Care About . Steam Thresh-
ing Machine.
Court resumed shortly before o. clock
yesterday afternoon, and immed lately
after the opening the jury in the case of
Daniel Fl. Kent VS.. the Mayor and
Council OF Wilmington came In with q
verdict In favor OF the plaintiff for
$3.50, with cents and the costs of the
suit.
The case Of @. Aultman 8, Co. VS..
Francis DugRan was then taken up for
trial, with Hoffecker & Hoffecker for
the plaintiff and Bradford b Vande-
grift for the defendant. The cause of
this action is as follows: On July Is,
1880, the defendant, who resides near
Odessa, bought q Sweepstakes Tresher
and engine from the plaintiff, who rep
resents a company at Camden, Ohio, for
which be agreed to pay 81 800.
he gave In payment four notes of
SS47 30, two Of which were paid and q
part OF each of the others. leaving q
balance on one of S36 So and $242 IA on
ths other, making total Of $278.50 for
which suit Is brought.
The case for the plaintiff was stated
BY j. H. Hoffecker. Esq, who produc-
ed the notes and stated the c aim, when
l.. @. Vandegrift, ESQ, attorney for the
defendant, stated that bis defense was
get of, and that instead of Mr.. Duggan
owing them they were indebted to him
for commissions, $l8 88 more than the
amount which he owed them.
Francis Durgan testified that he re-
sides near Odessa, and that In July,
1880, he had bought O steam thresher
and engine from G. Aultman & Co., for
which he gave four notes. At the same
time he became their agent, and sold
one OF the machines to Gould Il Co Ct
Pencader Hundred, for 81, 800. The
witness was engaged rs agent by Mr..
Matthews, the general agent In the
East, whose headquarters are in Balti-
more.
On crosg-examinstion, the witness
said that the commissions which he
earned by selling machines for the
company were TO be applied toward
paying his notes.
Thomas Gould testified that he pur-
chased steam thresher and engine of
Francis Duggan. He came to the wit
ness house and he bought the machine
on his oommendation, and because he
Evans came to him after wards and said
that Mr.. Duggsn had no right to sell
him q machine, as he was the agent for
that territory. The witness would not
have bought the machine OF Evans, as
he did not know him.
john Mccarthy testified that he ia q
black smith and had sold agricultural
implements for Aultman q Co., for
uy n n or
cant.
This was the last witness called by
tina defendant, and Mr.. Hoffecker called
q. w. Matthews for the plair tiff. He
said that he first became acquainted
with Mr.. DuSgan in 1880, when he
brought him an order for machine.
He had some little trouble In getting
the notes from Mr.. Duggan for bis ma
chine. He represent ted himself to the
witness ae business man, and he told
him that 1t was possible he might be
engaged as an agent for the next year,
but he could not by any possibility have
understood that they engaged their
agents to sell 81, 800 machints by meEe
| word of mouth. Ali their agents were
bound by contract 10 endorse the paper
OF all parties 10 whom they sold on
credit. The order for the machine for
Gould & Co. was not filled on Mr. Dag.
gau's order, ss he dad not recognize him
as the agent Of the company.
Josiah ID. Rvans testified that he
resides In Smyrna, and was an agent
| for Aultman & Co. In 1881. He learn
ed from man named Wilson, That the
Goulds wanted 10 buy machine and
he went TO ste them. Mr.. Gould told
; aim that he had given an order for a
machine TO Dugean, aid WHEN the wit.
ness told them that they could not get
1t on that order, as he was not an agent,
they told him to send 1t.
This was the last witness called for
thu plaintiff, and Mr.. Vandegriit 10.
called Mr. Duggan In rebuttal. He said
that he claimed bis commission on the
very day that he sold the machine, as
he sent the order TO Mr.. Matthews, and
he considered that claim enough.
Tho case was submitted to the jury
without argument, ard they retired al
8 10 O'Clock. They returned at 3 90
with verdict in favor of the defend
ant, and were discharged from further
attendance at this court.
City Solicitor Turner read his reasons
for q new trial In the case of the Ma.
tional Dredging Company VS.. the
Mayor aud Council of Wilmington, the
principal one being that the verdict was
contrary TO the law and the evidence,
When he finished reading, tho court
said the entire matter would be held
under consideration until the February
term. At 6 O'Clock court adjourned
until 10 O'Clock this morning.
III