Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1888-02-24
This Morninn,a uourt

When Superior Court resumed tbit
morbing, l. O VAndeRrifG, Esq, finish
ed his afgumsot to the jury for the
plaintiff, 10 the Case OF MaItin O'roole
We. Bowers, Dnie q o., after which
the charge Was delivered by the Ohioi
Justice and the jury retired at 10 Of
o'clock.
Walter Bacon, Esq, counsel fer the
defendant In the Gaze Of Henry 3
Brown, VS.. william II. Fenn.moio
stated to the Cont that they we're will
ing TO confess judgement for the
Amount claimed which was agreed 10 by
John II. Rodney, Esq, for the pls'n
tiffs, on condition thedefendsntSs hou d
sso pAy the costs Of the witnesses that
had been summoned. The court said
that naturally followed.
l.. O. Wand. gIitt, Esq stated to thu
court that he appeared on behalf OF he
Frisi Presse, as the objections to grant.
ing licenses to psrsons who advertise IL
that psper. which we're urged ~ the
last ttrm OF court, had done II sreal
deal OF injury financially.
He ssld the advertisement OF personi
sppiyiog for license In thai paper were
printed IN Raglish. md that 1t has G
cisoulalicn OF about two thousand He
therefore thought that the fact OF per
BON publishing his application In that
paper shonld not DO oonsidered valid
objection 70 the llcenge being granted
The Chief Justice said that the OBJ
ject In advertising those applications
Was for the purpose OF giving
them the greAtest publicity, anC
therefore no thought they shoult
b. advertised Ia the papers that hav'
the largest circulation. and are fesd b.
the greatest nUmbir OF people. Thi
being Getnsn paper 10 read mostl!
by that class, and as there are but fev
English speaking people who read
German paper, he could not see why al
advertisement published alone in tina
paper should not be considered q vAliC
objection 10 the license being granted
The Jury In tho oaas OF Mar,ll
0'rooie. Va. B5 werf, Dare 81 % cami
In st 1l.30 o'clock with . verdict II
favor OF the plaintiff for S135.H7 Nigi
interest from August 9th, 1894, InRhinI
o total OF s16ta9 Tho verdict: was re,
otiyod with applause, which wa
promptly checked by tbs Oourt.
Yilghmh Johnson, X one Of th
counsel Tor the deienda nls IN the case O
Mccartney, Ksnney u Co., rs. Buck
Shoemaker & Co, which wa
tried NJ the last term OF cnur.
and resulted In verdict OF SiTl0 70
1.-THE plaintiffs, stated to the conrt tina
instead oiArRuing the motion for . neN
TRIAL, II had bosE agreed between coun
sci that the plaintiff, would aocep
Judgment tor the valns OF the drop cnI
tain furnished by them, for the AoAd
envy OF Music, the amount, which l
computed at from $500 to $500, " be a.
certaiued by the prothonotAry.
Whtn the case3was ttie1 before, IT,
court distinctly charged the jury tia
the plush In the drop curtain was ID
only thing that could be recovered 70
by the mtchGrics' lien law, uudn
which the suit was brought.
AS nil the cases were dipposed OF ID
jurors were discharged from any far
ther attendance, and tho TemainOer O
the session consumed in hearing the oil
Runeut OF Johu II Rodney, EiQ 10
tbs plaintiff, on the demurrer In tn
GAGS OF John NJ. Houston VS. william
j. setRwlck, special bail Of Clayton {
IhEckery.