Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1888-12-13
END OF COURT.
Close of the Shortest Superior Court
Term for Years. n

OhDht VI AAAB fhOFteAt EWDtElUF bOuNt
Term for Years. n
At Thursday mornings session Of court
the first case called was that Of Edward W.
Tatman, administrator Of Charles Tat
man, deceased, We. Ephraim Beasten, ad-
ministrator Of Wilheimina Beasten, de-
ceased. John a. Rodney, ESQ.,, for
plaintiff. There was no defence and no
contest. The suit WAS on bend shd tho
jury rendered O verdict for the amount
claimed, $14Ol5. 80
Peter Ruhl & Go. OF Cincinnati, VS..
William 8. Mitchell late of the late book
firm of Baird q Mitchell. Hofecker q
Hoifecker for plaintiffs and u. q. Vande-
grift for defendant. This was an action
on two promissory notes one for 1856 nt
three months, dated January 9Th, 1856,
and the other for $132, at three months,
dated February 26th, 1886. Both notes
were msue payable to the order of the
plaintiffs and signed by Baird u Mitchell.
They were given in payment OF two ship
ments Of books. Henry Baird. cashier
of the Delaware Bank, testified that
Mitchell signed the firm name OF Baird
u Mitchell in the banks hook, and Hubse.
qhently Oh April 9th, 1886, Baird also en-
tered the firm name on the book. The
signatures to the notes, ho said, were in
Bsird's handwriting. Tie bank never
received notice of the FIRMS disHeiation.
The depositious Of p. Ruhl d Co., tRkcn
in Cincinnati by commission, showing
the account with Baird g. Mitchell from
September oath, 1884, to February 26th,
1885, testifying that the notes were given
in payment of bookg, and declaring that
they never received any notice Of the
FIRMS dissolution, were rend and offered
In evidence.
Mr.. Vandegrift claimed that his client
was not responsible, as the notes were
given mine monthg after Mitchell retired
from the firm, that he made PUBLIC an
nouncement of the dissolution Of the firm,
and that Baird wss trading tnder o diff
fsrant name at the time the notes were
given. MIR. Mitchell said he entered into
partnership with Cornelius e. Baird, but
withdrew from the partnership on March
31st, 1886. BE publicly advertised the
dissolution. The notes were given ten
months after his Withdrawal, and he did
not sign them. Arthur w. Brown said
that he sent an announcement Of the dis
solution of the firm of Baird a. Mitchell
to BrGdstredt, for which journal he was
then correspondent. Frank p. Gebling
testified that after October LIST, 1885,
Baird did business under the name of the
Bsird Manufacturing COMPANY. John
NJ. Whitford, business manager of EsERy
EVENING, produced q file of the paper for
| 1885, aud exhibited an advertisement OF
tho dissolution OF the firm of Baird &
Mitchell In the issues of April 18th and
20th. 1t wss signed by the firm and
stated that q. X. Baird would oontinue
the business, collect all bills and ipaylal
claims.
The case was briefly argued by counsel
and Chief Justice Oomegys charged the
jury. The court said that in an unlimited
| partnership public notice of dissolution,
and particular notice to nll the customers
with whom the firm has had dealings, is
necessary to release any OF the members
OF the partnership from liability for it's
debts. Otherwise any one Of the men,
bers can be held liable. The public no.
tice In the papers, unless 1t can be shown
that it has been particularly shown to or
brought to the attention Of the customers
Of the dissolved firm, cannot be held to
be sufficient to relieve any of the part
ners from liability for continued dealings
of any customers with tho partnership.
At l2.15 O'Clock the Jury retired. The
remaining jurors Of the panel, there be-
ing no more cases for jury trial, were dis.
charged from any further attendance
upon this term.
Court took reoess until 8 O'Clock,
leaving the jury ont.
Superior ( curt remained in session in
the afternoon waiting for the return of
tho jury that retired at noon. The only
business was an application of Il. q.
Ffaim, Eeq., for a rule to show cause
| why sheritf's sale should not be set
asids on the ground that the property was
not correctly described in the advertise
ment of sale and the sheriff's deed.
At 8 25 O'Clock the jury in the case of
Peter Ruhl Il 90. VS.. William s. Mitchell
into court afterdelibsrat three hoursand
of the late firm Of Baird IL Mitchell, came
40 minutes and announced an inability to
agree upon verdict. The jury was dis
charged and superior court was then ad
journed until the February term. The
ceurt Of oyer and terminer was ad journed
until to-day, when the trial of ssWilliam
Calhoun will be called.
This Is the shortest November term OF
the superior court held for years. There
were but three jury trials aside from in
QUESTIONS at the bar and an unusually
large number of suits were settled with
out trial. Over dozen cases were set
down for trial at the February term,
which bids fair to be protracted one.