Daily Republican., 1889-05-24

Az soon as court convened this morn
ing the Jury In the case OF Stewart We. the
p. W, Il b. Railroad was charged by
the Chief Justice and retired at 1920
o'clock.
Another jury was then drawn and the
case of p, Reuhl & Co. VS.. William 8.
Mitchell was taken up for trial. This
case was tried at a previous term and the
jury disagreed. 1t is an action to recover
on two promisory notes given by Baird Il
saitcheli TO 2. Reuhl 4 Go, One Of these
notes was for SIS, dated January 9th,
1886, at three months, and the other for
$l32, February 10Th, 1885. Hodecker &
Brother appeared for the plaintiff and
Bradford & Vandegrift for the defendant.
After the case had been stated TO the
Jury by j. II. Hoiiecker, ESQ, he COM
menced the examination OF witness. 8.
Henry Bayard was sworn, and testified
that he Is a teller in the National Bank of
Delaware in this city. He had the sigma
lures OF Cornelius Baird and William 3.
Mitchell at the bank as members of the
| ii m of Baird 81 Mitchell On March II,
| 1884, he Cashed check signed by William
s. Mitchell Ms a member of the firm, and
ON April 6, 1885, cashed check signed
| by Cornelius Baird for the firm.
| William d. Paddock testified that he
knew Cornelius Baird and William s.
Mitchell composed the firm. They con-
Quoted the business Of book publishers at
No. AIS Market street, and afterwards at
Fourth aud Shipley streets, In the CAV
throp Building.
Mr.. Hofiecker submitted to the jury an
affidavit of the members OF the firm OF
Reuhl & Co., taken IN Cincinnati, show
Ing that they had sent goods to the firm
and taken their notes They were never
notified of the dissolution OF the firm.
1his closed the testimony on the part OF
the plaintiff, and L. Q. Vandegrlft, Esq.
opened the case for the defense to the
jury. After stating the facts which he
proposed to prove, he commenced the
examination of Witnesses.
William 8. Mitchell was sworn, and
testified that he entered into partnership
with Cornelius Baird in March, 1884, and
withdrew from the firm March 3lst, 1885
lie knew nothing of the notes given to th,
plaintiff as they we're executed after HI
had Withdrawn. At the time the firm
was dissolved the witness had noticei
published In the papers and notified sew
eral parties from whom they had beer
purchasing goods.
Arthur W. Brown testified that he wa
an agent OF Bradstreet Company, an,
nau DOllH6u LUen OF Tue ulsSOlullOn y
the firm of Baird " Mitchell.
Frank Z. Gedling testified that h
knew that the firm of Baird & Mitchell
was dissolved In 1855. He was collec
, tor for the firm, and after Mr.. Baird NOV
ed to Fourth and Shipley streets, the firm
name was not used on the signs.
John NJ. Whitford testified that he
the business manager of the Every Even
ing On April 18 and 20, 1885, ther
was notice published In that pape
stating that the partnership was dis
solved, and that Baird would collect a
debts and pay all claims against the firm
This was the last witness for the Dc
Tense, and Mr.. HofieckeI made his argu
ment TO the jury. He closed 10y askin
for verdict for $3.50. 80, the full amour
OF the claim with interest to date.
He spoke about 20 minutes, and whe
he closed the jury were charged by th
Chief Juetice. He said that where:
partnership was formed II was presume
In law to still exist, until 1t was brougl
home to oil the parties with whom Il
firm had been doing business that II la
ceased to exist and the individual men
bers were liable for aLy debts that migl
be ntracted.
II they did not believe this had bee
done In the present case they weuld
bound to render verdict against the Il
PENDANT. The charge was finished al
the jury retired at 1920 o'clock.
A jury was then drawn TO try the ca
of William Carey VS.. David Howard, a
&c minlstra.or of Maria Cary, decesse
u with Levi G. Bird, Esq for the plant
l. and Bradford Il Vandegrift for the d
l. fendant. Court then took a recess un
n, 8 o'clock this afternoon.