Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1886-12-02

tect themselves by special contract not con-
travening such policy, aud have also.the
Important privilege Of retaining tho
property for which their liability exists
until their charges In the one ease for the
entertainment given, aud IN the other for the
carriage OF the goods, are paid. A livery
STABLE keeper,l nor priva,e carrier has
by the common law any such privilege. He
may excuse himself by showing due dill
gence.
Should you discredit the testimony Of the
defendant and his witnesses and refuse TO
ascribe the calamity that happened to the
mare to unavoidable accident, which no
care or attention could guard against under
tne eircumstanees,t then your verdict should
be for the plaintiff for the value OF the mare
In her condition Of lameness at tho time she
was delivered to the innkeeper; hut II you
do not discredit the defendants witnesses
and believe the mare broke her legas stated
by falling down upon 1t In ATTEMPTING to
rise In the stable, then 1t should be for the
defendant. Should you find for tho plain
tiff, your verdict may include sum of
money beyond the value OF the mare, "a and
for further damages, which sum would be
as liked In like actions, the amount Of inter
est the principal sum Tor value Of tho mare)
would draw from the time Of her loss till the
present time.
With respect to the legal conclusions we
have arrived at In our examination of the
authorities cited and others also, we hnvs
to say, in our opinion those presented by the
counsel for the plaintiff fully justify the
claim OF his client, and are greatly ia pre-.
ponderancy over those offered by the other
side, which would be ample for the defen.
dants contention, If they were not opposed
by such an array OF potent decisions IN hos
Utility TO them. And we may say, we trust
with due sense Of the gravity OF the obser-
walton, that we think the report OF Cayles
case In 9Th reports did not Justify the
opinion OF 1t expressed by some eminent
judges, particularly Justice Story, In treat
ing OF the law concerning innkeepels. Lord
Coke certainly we think did not mean that
an innkeeper was not an insurer, or he
would not have used the language imme-
diately following, that relied upon by JUS
tlee Story, In support Of his theory OF quail
lied liability beyond that Of q carrier His
meaning seems to be that aserlbed to his
language by learned California Judge In
Matter VS.. Brown Cal. 22I. As the cases
on both sides will BIO given in the report OF
this case, It seemed unnecessary tn refer
particularly to them in this charge,
The jury, after deliberating ali hour,
returned verdict for the defendant.
The case of Sprague va. Oriental Lodge,
No. 10, X. of p, was then resumed. For
the defence Thomas Morine, Peter
Stewart, Mark Wilson, Louis Scranton,
William L. Whitworth, George Heverin,
Henry Mcdonnell, Samuel M. Wood and
Edwin Il. Eokel, members of Oriental
Lodge, testified TO frequently seeing
Sprague in q state of intoxication during
the time for which he claims benefits,
They also said that he made no mention
OF being afflicted with rupture until
after the benefits allowed him during his
sickness from chronic diarrhea ceased.
The case was still on trial at the o'clock
adjournment.
An evening session was held for the
purpose of allowing William @. Spruance
and Benjamin Nields, Esqs., the respec-
tive counsel in the case of William Weigh.
ley vs.. Jesse Lanes executors, to argue a
technical point involved in the presenta-
ton of their case. No other business
was transacted.
During Mondays session Deputy At.
torney- General Biggs referred to the peti.
ton presented by Alexander B. Cooper,
Esq, for the discharge from prison Of
Francis Carter, alias big Frank" the
bank burglar, and made motion that
tue petition be dismissed. On this motion
the case will be argued some time during
this term.
At the opening of court on Tuesday
the case of Ephraim Sprague Va. lrienta
Lodge, No. 10, X. of p, was resumed.
The defence recalled Col. 3. n Wood
who said that George Guthrie, on ns the
plaintiffs witnesses, had told him ht
picked Sprague out of the gutter.
M A nenrNa~ rtrau BALLAD hxr thf
plaintiff and testified that he examined
Sprague in June, 1885, and found him
suffering from hernia. On the SECOND
examination he also found him suffering
from hydrocle, for which he performed
an operation. He said that neither o.
these affections were the result of in
| temperance.
Jonathan O. Barr testified that he knew
Sprague to be suffering from hernia be
tween June, 1884, ard April, 1885; saw
him number of times during that period
| but never saw. him in an intoxicated con
dition, although he occasionally detected
| evidences of liquor on him.
Isaiah NJ. Whitebide and William E
| Broomall testified in like manner to thu
| previous witness, and George Guthrie wa
| recalled, and said that when talking Il
| Col s. M. Wood about Sprague's condi
| ton he said he 'swRa down in the gutter,
but did not mean he was intoxicated, bu
simply that he was in a condition of deel
poverty. He also told Col. Wood that /
was as much the duty of the Knights o
Pythias to help Sprague as it was tn
duty of the Red Men.
John Yuuger and John A. Collins test
fed that they knew Mr.. Spragre well
and saw him frequently, but never kneS
him to be under the influence of liquor
Mrs. Eva M. Street testified that Mrs
Pruitt told her that she would not testif
in Mr.. Sprague's behalf if she could he'll
il. Witness also said that Mr.. Spragu
boarded with her for some time, but sh
never saw him under the influence O
liquor. Mrs. Adeline Twiggs said sh
had known Sprague for Is years, an
made bRndages for him during his i'll
| ness, but she never knew him To
drunk or even under the Influence o
liquor. Thomas A. Freed, bartender o
John I. MERGERS saloon, testified tina
Sprague frequently came to the saloon b
| visit him aud Mr.. and Mrs. Mercer, au
though he occasionally drank, witnes
had never seen him under the infiuenc
4
of liquor.
The plaintiff here closed, and Nj
Emmons opened the argument to til
Jury. He was followed by Mr.. Bird 70
the defence, and Mr.. Lore closed for til
plaintiff. When he concluded the coui
took a recess until o'clock, p. m.
A few minutes after the assembling c
court in the afternoon, the jury in tn
case of Ephraim M. Sprague vs.. Orients
Lodge, No. 10, X. Of p, which had bee
charged by the court just before the moo
adjournment, returned with verdict fo
the defendant.
The next case started upon was that c
tae National Dredging Company vs.. til
mayor and Council of Wilmington, Hot
fecker & Hoffecker for plaintiff and OFT
Solicitor Henry @. Turner for defendan
]. H Hoffecker, Jr., Esq, opened for th
plaintiff and claimed that the NationI
Dredging Company had entered into
contract with the city to extend Fourt
street to the Delaware river, and to ope
street from Christiana avenue, Sout
Wilmington, to low water mark on III
Cbristiana river. The contract price VIZ
S12, 500, but only $9, 500 had been pai'
, leaving $1,000 due, with interest frol
September 9th, 1888. He said the sire
| from ChrissiRna avenue was not finishe'
, because the ebb and flow of the tide rel
dered it impossible. The city, he sai'
/, had refused from time to time to make
final settlement for the contract.
Franklin b. Cotton, vice president on
/ general manager of the National Dredgir
/ Company, testified that his company MAJ
t a contract with the City Council to do u
, work described by Mr.. Hoffecker. Durir
the progress of the work on the sou'
, Wilmington street, Mr.. Adele, chairmt
y of the opening streets committee, ask'