Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1889-12-19
nUPEKI0R OUU!sT.

|a The entire session OF bnp erluF OJEft yss- |
n terday afternoon weeG was tasen 40 With
argument in tho Wallace case. l., Q
fyandegritt, ED, presented number Of
ghuthorities to tho court, bearing on the
case, and ciaimeG that as the plaintiff was |
9lRuiI!y OF contributo;y negligence in TAX
ing short cut from the station, she
was not entitled TO any damageB, even II
she had been injured. He commended
thgt the diseaBa With which ahe 10 sEf-
fering was not csuaed by the fall, and
n shat even il the accident had not occurred
4 she would have been affected With the
X cancer. At 4 20 O'CLOCK court took re-
IA cess until 8 O'Clock, Thursday morning.
a AZ anon as the mgujamus business was
disposed OF at Thursday mornings
teslion OF court, some minor business WA
taaen up after which L. O. Nan6egrft,
EGO. resumed his argument to the aoutt
ana Jury in tho WGll6ce anTe. He was fol-
lowed by u. q Bradford, Esq also for
the defence, and mt O'CLOCK g recess WAS
J. In t.ken untii go O'Clock the afternoon.
Ha Tho superior court met Ia the after
" lnoon at 2 O'Clock, at which time Chief
Justice Gomegvs nj once began to read the
y CHARGE OF the court Ia the case OF Wallace
~ VS.. the Wilmington IL Northern railroad.
M The charge occupied about half an hour In
~ its delivery and was complete In stating the
II.H INV 1lNplVNu IN llB Clisbs tie explained
y the responsibilities Of railroads as common
4 carriers and stated that the law recognized
( that they shall adopt the most improved
means Tor the protection OF their patrons.
n Reasonable care was necessary 10 be exer-
KIN Clsed On hoth sides, and the colrt could
not recommend damages II the Victim did
% not exercise due care. The railroad COM
pnny WIS bound TO tnrnlRh convenient
means OF access 20 or departure from sta
tions. There vas much conflicting testi-
mony whlcd the jurors would have to Silt
~ for themselves.
Mr.. Salisbury asked for permission to file
ID u supplementary application asking the
court to sol aside the sale OF the Excelsior
Brewing Company on account OF made
Slh quacy Of price. me original application
which was filed according 10 law was the
\ II affidavit of the secretary end treasurer
h while the supplementary one was from the
N president Of tho company who resides out
" side the STATE. MI. Rodney who repre-
n sisented tho sheriff, objected to The filing OF
b the application because II bad not been
done IN time. He said that the last sale
was the third time that the brewery had
been cold md his client was getting rather
* y tired of the matter The court agreed 10
N hear the matter,
kf Court reconyene1 ct CLOCK Friday morn-
ing, and Mr. Bird resumed his argument to
Il the Jury for tho plaintiff In the case Of
4 NJ Mary wallace. He spoke until 1885 o'clock,
XIV when Chipf Justice ComOgYs left 1t to the
lsg Jury wnether or not II would receive the
sA charge b4tore the recess, and upon wore
VAN being taken, only three voted tn the alllrma-
tive aud tue jury was discharged until
#f O'Clock in tbealternoon. awnlnntes lhtel
M court took a recess until tho same time.
The Jury In tie casa Of May Wallace vs.
F the Wilmington 4 Northern Railroad Com
& pany who went out nj 235 o'clock on Fri
R day afternoon, desired to be discharged
Friday evening by reason OF disagreement
but the court refused, and they remained
out all night. Saturday morning they were
i# brouRh. into court and upon being qles
IA toned said It was impossible to agree upoI
M verdict, and they were discharged.
II will oe remembered that this case waE
tried with II jurors one of the number
" mir. Cofbt OF 81. Georges hundred, bsint
excused on account OF death in his family
w. Careful Investigation after the jury wer
se discharged showed that they stood ak 10
M the plaintiff and five for the defendant,
THE RIOTERS SENTENCED.
MD As soon as this was disposed Of Georg
" BrAttun, Alfred Barnes, Jchu Barnes Jane
% Harkins, Jacob Ii. Nandegritt, Jr., an
Il james Dougherty, convicted OF rtoting q
II New Castle on the night Of September itt
4ii were brought In court, when Judge PAynte
8 delivered ths opinion of the court on MI
itf VRndegEitt5 motion for an arrest of iudR
NH ment. After citing the statute against riot
e4 ing the oplaion says:
fH This uct by It's terms creates q statutor
OuHnGb anu NlbD USES bno WuEub VI a llliC
a or MORO persons hall commit RIOT thoreb
8 giving the power to lndtot 10. riot at CON
y mon law. Tho latter form OF indictmet
has commonly been used IL this Safe an
the one bat0rs ns Tor consideration 10 ~
a cordinS TO that form.
t 1.-THE definition Of tha offence ut eommo
tN law Is a tumultuous nesting OF person
WIS upon some purpose which they aetuall
execute with Violence But II seems thu
& III number OF men assemble with arms
terrorum populi, though no act be done,
s Is a RIOT There are, therefore, two classs
OF riots. In one class 1t Ii necessary tn
some act should be done In addition to Il
ii act of assembling together; but Ia the otht
84 no net Is necessary to constitute the offene
The latter class s where the assembly n
M armed with dangerous weapons TO u
tn terror OF tho people,
fN I'VE do not understand THAT the defel
E& dante counsel claims the indictment is q
f Esctlve OF itself as nm indictment OF 4
latter class Of riots; but the grounds OF o.
y iseton arc that acts OF violence, such
breaking Into houses, were proved at II
trisl, when no each acts Of violence we
alleged Ia the Indictment that IL SUCH ac
We're proved 1t was necessary 10 state
whom the houses reoagei or by whom q
same were occupied.
e "rhe motion before the court IL for ARE
Of judgment and Il not for any cause a
3 ,patOnt upon the record; but because tes
M linupy was admitted proving the breaRil
SE Into houses when no Buch cnhfge was
N legged Ii the Indictment, and because II q
fe not name tho owners Or occupants OF su
houses. II Il not contenlsi that there
ANY error IN the Indictment ihi5 ID I
apparent upon the record, and mott
for arrest Of Judgment is not prop
motion under such circumstances For {
introduction OF improper testimony
IA which u Jury IS misled into rend
ing an uuluHt verdict, molten
f \ new trial might bs entertained,
tho question upon that motion would
whether the testimony Complained OF
this cusa was such ~ to cause al uni
verdict, or whether ltA admission would
3Mf sufficient ground 10 sustain the last mt
8M toned motion The Jury only found
iS defendants guilty IN manner mud form
3s indicted, which was for hot to the terror
%si the people, They weE9 not found guilty
more than Wus charged against tnem
there was enough proof vi riot In ID
without Gny proof Whatever Of break
fe into the dwellings. The conclusions, tue
fore, reuched upon consideration OF
points raised by tho lgt4nco are:
GN ~. That tbs motion Tor the arrest
Judgment ii not the proper motion up
MIX which to raise tho question involved,
cause the grounds hiei for tho motion
y not for any cause apparent upon the Il
RAY of the record.
iSE 'i2. That II the proper motion had b.
M made for rehearihS OF tho case, on
ih ground that improper testimony was
9is mittad IN evidence, by which injustice '
done, thu court would then be Of the or
.l.f ipn that tue preOf complained OF was Pr
ery admitted and WNs not the cause OF I
inInstlc5.
:'rhe motion for tho arrest Of iadgm
I.ffNf DC -