Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1886-05-27
sUPRRIoR oouRr.


AFTERNOON week, the charge Of the court
In the case of Bradley VS.. Kent's executor
was delivered by Chief Justice oomeRys,
and at 1926 o'clock the jury retired.
The case of Samuel ID. Forbes VS.. James
Martin, exsheriff, was then resumed with
Samuel ID. Forbes on the stand. He tea.
titled that he was engaged in the business oil
manufacturing wheels and spokes at one
time, but had been out of business fol-
the past six years. He owned and used
hub lathe, spoke lathe and tennent
machine with fixtures. After his retire.
ment from business these machines and
fixtures were borrowed from him by the
firm of Forbes x Banks, his successors in
the business, who fixed their establish.
ment over Market street bridge. He sub
sequently agreed to sell these machines
to Forbes a. Banks for $3.50, but they
had not the cash to pay and no snle was
effected. Afterwards Banks returned and
tendered him the firms notes for $3.50 in
payment for the machines. He at first
refused to accept them, but afterwards
consented, with the understanding that
the firm was not TO own the machines
until the notes were paid. Banks, Mt this
time, asked for n receipt for the notes,
which was given, but IL was not until
afterwards that he learned that the sheriff
had an execution against the property of
Forbes d Banks. He did not know at
the time that the firm of Forbes u Banks
was involved in pecuniary difficulty.
After the goods under execution were
levied upon Banks admitted to him that
the machines were his, but gave no salts
faction in relation to whether or not they
would be sold. The next time he went
there the establishment was closed by
the sheriff. He spoke TO the sheriff about
his machines, and the sheriff advised him
to get out writ of replevin, which he did.
Jacob Trusty, oolored, testified that he
was employed by Samuel ID. Forbes and
subsequently by Forbes q Banlss. He
was employed as laborer, but worked at
turning on one of the machines. He
went to Samuel d. Forbes to borrow these
machines for Forbes IL Banks, but did not
get them subsequently they were OBJ
tanned by William Forbes. After the
sheriff's levy was made, Robert Banks
told him to get all the patterns and other
fappurtennnces of these machines, and put
them away together, as they belonged to
Samuel ID. Forbes and not to the firm.
Mr.. Banks afterwards said these machines
were levied upon by mistake. They were
always known in the shop as the Samuel
Forbes machines.
Mrs. Maria q. Hartmann testified to
William Forbes coming around and bor-
rowing the hub lathe, spoke lathe and
tennenting machine from Samuel ID.
Forbes through her. She afterwards in
formed Mr.. S. ID. Forbes of her action in
loaning the machines, and he did not
nlNfa0t 10 tl.n fNu.,paaAint, Hbs ,,,tN,
also testified to hearing the arrangement
between Samuel ID. Forbes and Forbes Il
Banks for the purchase of the machines,
and to the fact that the arrangement made
was that the machines were to be the
property of Samuel D. Forbes, until the
notes giving in payment were paid.
AT $3.50 O'clock the jury in the case of
Caleb Ii. Bradley vs.. Benjamin Kent's
executor came into court with verdict
for the plaintiff for S95655. At the re
quest of Mr.. Nields, counsel for the de-
PENDANT, the jury was polled and each
member assented TO the verdict.
At 5.55 o'clock court adjourned to 10
O'Clock Thursday morning.
Court convened Mt 10 o'clock, Thursday
morning, and after finishing thetestimony
of Mrs. Maria @. Hartmann, the plaintiff
in the case of Forbes VS.. ex Sheriff james
Martin rested.
Thomas Davis, Esq, opened for the de-
fence, claiming that the machine, replev-
ined by Samuel ID. Forbes had been pur-
chased by the firm of Forbes II Banks
prior to the seizure by the sheriff. Robert
Il. Banks, of Forbes IL Banks, testified
that the firm took S. ID. Forbes hub
lathe, spoke lnthe, tenoning machine and
polishing machine fixed them up at con-
siderable trouble and expense and used
them. Subsequently the firm bought
them from $. d. Forbes, giving in pay
ment notes to the amount Of $3.50 and
four sets of wheels.
William Forbes, the other member of
the firm, corroborated this testimony.
After the sheria's levy Samuel d. Forbes
said he would see if something could not
be done to keep the machines,
Joseph Martin, who was deputy sheriff
under his father, James Martin, testified
to making levy upon the property of
Forbes Il Banks. The machinery in ques-
ton was included in the levy, and was
subsequently replevined.
This closed the testimony and argn-
ment began, which, by order Of the court,
was limited to / J hours ON each side. Mr..
Spruance opened for the plaintiff and
spoke until o'clock, when court took
recess until o'clock, p. M.
William O. Spruance, ESD, resumed his
argument for the plaintiff i'll Forbes vs.
ex-SherifI Martin, immediately after the
opening of the superior court at o'clock
in the afternoon. He was followed by
Messrs. Davis and Nields for the defence,
after which Mr.. Spruance closed. Argu-
ment was concluded at 5.35 o'clock, when,
in Difference to the wishes of the Jury,
the charge was deferred until Friday
morning.
The causes known as the insurance
cases were then started upon. The
plaintiff is William H. Pearson, and the
defendants the Etna, Hartfordand Liver
pool, London a. Globe Fire Insurance
Companies. The suits are for insurance
upon the plaintiffs property, which was
destroyed by fire. The case against the
Etna was first taken up. II was for these
cases that two special panels of jurors
were drawn, and from the panels the fol
lowing trial jury was selected Colin
Ferguson, j. Wilkins Cooch, Charles G..
Ash, William f. Smalley, Samuel Silver,
Isaac N. Grubb, John Pyle, Joseph Han
son, Theodore L. Armstrong, John Pilling,
Robert @, Justis, Charles Corbit. The
gist of the case is the amount of insur-
ance claimed. the plaintiff claiming that
the value of goods destroyed was
$12, S992l, and the defendant claiming
that it was but So, 900. Benjamin Nields,
ESQ.,, is counsel for the plaintiff, and
Bradford 4 Vandegrift and Levi O. Bird,
Esqs., for the defendants.
The jury, after being sworn, was dis
charged Friday until 10 o'clock morning
MIR. Bradford then asked leave for the de-
PENDANTS, to amend their answer by strik-
ing out So, 900, their estimate Of the value
of the property, aud inserting 80 900.
Mr.. Nields objected.
Pending decision of the motion court
adjourned until 10 o'clock Friday morn
ing.
Immediately after the reassembling of
the court, Friday, the charge of the
court in the repleyin case of Forbes VS..
ex.Sheriff Martin was delivered by Chief
Justice Comegys, and At 1920 O'Clock
the Jury retired.
The case of William II. Pierson VS.. the
Etna Insurance Company, was then re-
sumed, and after the reading of the pleas
and replications, Benjamin Eields, ESD,
opened for the plaintiff. He said Mr..
Pierson, in 1882, engaged in the business
of selling doors, sashes, blinds and other
mill.work, on Front street, near Wash
ington. He had his building and
stock insured, the amount placed
on the latter being $4,000, as
follows: 81 500 in tho Etna, $1,000
in the Hartford, $4,000 iu the Phoenix
and SO 500 in the Springfield. On Sum
day. September I'd, 1882, the building