Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1889-12-31

The Superior Court for New Oastl,
county convened at 0 o'clock this morn
ing, Chief Justice Comegys and Asso
ciate Justice Paynter on tie bench. Asso
elate ustice Houston subsequently, came
In and took his seat.
Docket case No. l5i, Thomas Ford. d
b. a vs.. Patrick Cannon, D. b, r.. an.
peaied from the Justices docket, was de.
elared ready tor trial. johnson & Have.
appeared for Ford and Lllburne Chan
cier, ESQ.,, for Cannon.
Before jury was called, Henry G,
conrad, Esq, one OF the counsel fol
1eorge Williams, convicted of the muir.
der OF Walter f. Wright, stated 10 the
court that being under the impression
that wednesday being holiday, there
would DO no session of court, he had
made arrangements TO be out Of the city
on that day, and in consequence he could
not Do present to argue the case Tor q
new trial for Williams.
Inc Chief Justice said that the court
would be put to great Inconvenience also
III the argument did not proceed, but the
court would hold the application under
advlsement.
A jury was then called and the case of
Thomas Ford We Patrick Cannon was
called. In September, 1857 Mr.. Cannon
WAS employed by Ford to wall up cellar
ON Delaware avenue near jackson stceet.
Mf. Ford was to find the stone and Gan
non was to find the sand and Inns and
perform the labor, Tor which lie was to
receive - 20 per perch, amounting IN all
TO S5HO7, including interest TO date.
lhls amount had never been paid.
Mr.. Hayes. Tor Mr.. Ford contended
that In the first place Mr.. Ford never
hired Cannon, and In the second place
the work was not doEe In a wCrkmauliko
manner, and fell down and had to be ro-
built
Ford said ho was employed as SUPER
intendendent oil the work, but Charles J.
Kyle, employed Cannon. Cannon,
while on the stand, said he had often
worked Tor Mr.. Ford, but only this once
since he was sheriff. After the examina-
tion OF large humber OF witnesses on
both sides, Mr.. Chandler, said, | am
willing TO submit the case without arsu-
meht. so dm replied Mr.. Hayes, and
the jury retired.
A jury was called to try the case o ( the
Birisa!l Company W Theodore II. Arm
strong. j. Alexander Fulton, Esq, of
Dover, appeared for plaintiff, and John
Biggs, Esq, for defendant. Counsel for
plaintiff 8 ated that the case was Brought
for the recovery of three promissory notes,
one OF them with provision in T.. One
Of the notes was Ter $50. dated July Il,
1888; the second was tor SiG5, dated Nov.
~. 1885, and the thId was for $40 dated
December !, 1883.
The jury n the case Of Ford W. & n
non came IN and rendered u verdict IN
favor of Cannon iOr III full amount OF
ls claim, {J7.OI.
The ease OF the Bifdtall Company vs..
Theodore II. Armstrong was resumed.
Mr.. Darlington, cashier of tho Cit
zens' National Bank of Mlddlctown,
testified that at the times the notes ma
tured Mr.. ArmStr NJ had no fluids ia
the bank to meet the claims
Mr.. fulton here To,ted his case.
Mr.. Biggs stated on behalf of his
client that Armstrong had purchased
from the Birdsall Company u steamer
and n separator Tor threshng out grain.
He sid eu2ines ior plaintiffs, and the
debt was ut one time 81 SOS, but his
C minis 1ns on the sslcs made am ouuiing
to t3tU ahi $500, which had been paid in
cash, reduced the deb: to sSG5.
Mr.. Armstrong purchased what put
ported 10 be atwclve horse power engine,
which Was not more than All eight horse
power, AID the engine utterly failed to do
the work II WAS intended to do. The
separator Gid It's work so badly that
farmers refused to employ Arm strong
farther, bS which lie was great loser.
Armstrong being called TO the stand,
Mr.Fultun objected to accepting evidence
OF partial Payment ami quoted number
OF law authorities IN support Of his posi-
ton. Law authorities were quoted and
discussed until O'Clock when a recess
WAS taken until O'Clock.