Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1889-02-14
Court This Morning.

Court This Morning.
Court resumed proceedings at IL
O'Clock this morning, with the Chlel
j Justice and Associate Judges Houston
and Payntsr on the bench.
! Immediately after the opening BenJs'
min N,elds, Esq., attorney for Francis "
Simpson In the case OF John Robinson,
In which the latter was awarded SS,COt
damages, made motion for new trial,
and stated that he would file his reasons.
The testimony taken before tho COM
missioner In the divorce case OF Margaret
Gambia w. Henry u. Gamble WAS also
presented by Mr. Nielde. The report
favored granting the application, aud on
Mr.. Nields' motion the return was con-
frmed.
The Jury in the case OF William Il.
Robinson Va. the Mayor aud Council OF
Wilmington were charged by the Chief
Justice, Ia effect, that the city is bound
10 keep its sidewalks in repair and in q
pastable condition.
| He said that according to the iestin- ony
the hole In the sidewalk where the de-
fsndsnt fell had been suffered TO exist for
at least three months, and therefore 1t Ia
| to be presumed that tina city was aware
OF Its existence. 1t was, therefore. q
queatioI for the jury TO determine
whether or not the city was guilty oil
gross negligence 10 permitting this detect
In the sidewalk TO remain. The Jury
mat a'so consider Whistler or nos the
accident was the result of any careless
nehs on the part oil the plaintiff in not
exercising ordinary care and caution In
walking along street at right II they
believe that this Is shown by the testi-
mn IN, hA ha kat Hn ,Ot
be entitled to recover, notwithstanding
the city's negligence. II, however, tho
Jury should believe otherwise the plaintiff
|. entitled to damages, the amount to be
fixed by the Jury. At 1880 o'clock the
jury retired.
The case OF James w. Ware re. Abram
J. Peters was then resumed, aud the ex-
animation Of Witnesses commenced.
Abram J. Peters testified that he is the
defendant in this case, AID did some work
Tor James w. Ware, tor which he was TO
pay him In stair work. That which he
did for Mr.. Ware amounted to $500, and
he received tl43.75 in two Stairway,
leaving balance still due him. The
witness was under contract to 60 build
ing for Ware, amounting to over So, 600.
and this 500 was for ezra work. He
admitted that he had never presented a
b'lltto Mr.. Ware for this extra work, but
that he had offered TO pay the witness
$50, which he declined to accept, The
change made from the plane and specifl.
cations were done by Mr.. Wares orders,
and Tho witness expected bin TO pay Tor
them, and therefore engaged bin to put
up the stairways.
John NJ. Cuirey testified that he Ia a
bril- kleyer aud worked for Mr.. Peters at
the time he built the houses for Mr.,
Ware. He rememtercd about the flues
being altered and other changes made
from the plans and specifications by order
OF Mr.. Ware.
Patrick Fahay, wlo did the carpenter
work, also testified 10 the some effect.
This was the last witness called by the
defendant, AID the examination OF wit
uesses for the plaintiff was commenced.
james W. Ware testified that he with
Mr.. Murphy contracted with Mr. Peters
Tor the erection OF u number OF housea
at Tenth and Madison sireets, this city.
He did not know OF any extra work
being put on these houses, but he re.
men bered Offering TO deduct $50 from
his bill against MIR. Pe.ers, to save lliiga.
ton. He could not recOllect ever ordrf.
ing the dues 10 DO taken down on
char god in any wa.
Samuel Muir, by testified that he was
associated with Mr.. Ware In the cor.
struction of a number OF houses at Tenth
and Madison streets, in 1888, for which
Mr.. Peters Wrs the contractor. When he
came to settle with MIR. Peters he made
him deduct 500 from the contract price
on account OF the work not being done in
satisfactory manner. He never knew
ui any extra work being done, and Mr.
feters did not make any claim TO. &c al
the time the settlement was made.
In fact he never knew Of such q claim
until last night. While the buildings
were being erected the witness was around
almost all the time. He had lever heard
that Mr.. Peters threaienrd to put me.
CHI. nice lien ON the property.
Mr., Pc era was then iecaled, and ttat-
ed that he had told MIR. Ware that unless
he paid for these extras he would put a
lien on the property.
Mr.. Waie was also recalled and con-
tradicted this statement In every resp CT.
This was the last witness examined.
and Mr.. Macallister made the opening
argument TO the jury He closed by ask
ing. for verdict tor ti43.75. with interest
TO date, making total of bl7s.5 So.
He was followed by Mr. Nlelds for the
teiebooi wiz hiu NOT Conclude until IL. 40.
Mr.. Macallitter then presented several
authorities bearlng on the case to the
Court, after which he addressed the jury
until The recess was taken.
The Jury In the case OF William II
Robinson VS.. the Mayor and Council OF
w llmington came Ia lust tefote l o..
CLOCK with yerd CT in favor OF the
p'atEiih Tor $4,000. ine Jurors were at
the request of Mr. Lore noIled and zach
| answered that was lis yerd let.
During the morning Low c, Bird
htq,, presented the report OF the com.
mission In the divorce case OF Martha
Patterson vs. WIN. w. Patterson, and on
his motion the report was q cepted and
the decree granted.
At / nlnlnrk court fnnl n ,.onn.. - IL q