Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1890-02-20
THE WIZ CONTEST.

w. & B. Railroad Company was finally |
argued, al Thuradayimorning's session OF
superior court, and there was large and |
interested audience present. George v.
Massey, Esq, of Dover, made the closing
argument for the defendant and Albert
Constable, Eaq,, of Eikton, Md, summed
up for the plaintiff. Both arguments
were keen, vigorous and analytical, pre-.
benting the respective phases of the css .
at issue In the strongest possible light.
Each gentleman spoke exactly one
hour, and it was IL So o'clock when Mr..
Constable concluded. The charge of the
court was delivered by Chief Justice
Oomegys. He said the sole question
Involved in the case was whether the
defendant was guilty of negligence in It's
duty towards the plaintiff, who was in its
employ when the accident occurred. An
employer is bound to nuke the service
demanded Of his employees reasonably
safe, and to employ capable agents or
,overseers to carry out the details OF the
service. The employer is also bound to
provide reasonably safe place for the
workmen TO work in. II the car on
which the plaintiff was working at thu
time OF the accident vas moved without
due and proper notice being given to the
plaintiH, then the defendant ID liable.
But IL such due and proper notice was
given, and the plaintiff failed to avail
himself Of it, then he was guilty Of con-
tributOfy negligence and cannot recover.
These ere the points at isaue for the jury
to decide between, according to the testi-
m0ny.
at haas o'clock the jury retired.
An Interesting case involving the ie-
Rality OF tho will OF John Ferry, de-
~, ntk IS
Wilmington, was begun in superior court
the afternoon. The case was that
of James Ferry and others vs.. James W.
MoCIockey, administrator of Mary Ann
Ferry, deceased. widow OF John Ferry
and 81 an issue from the register of wills,
who granted the letters OF administration
90 the defendant. Messrs. William q.
Bpruanee, John Biggs and Il. o. Fraim
appear for the PLAINTIFF, and the defend
ant is represented b. Hon. Charles
Lore and Hon. George II. Bates.
From panel summoned especially for
this ca1e the following trial jury was
drawn: David W. Eikinton, Theodore
+. Olarh, Thomas Davidson, Columbus
Watkins, John L. 0heeirs, John Otto,
William f. Stuokert, r. Lewis ARM
strong, William A. Morrison, James 4.
Taylor, Samuel Alrichs, John G. Almond.
The ease, MIR. Lore said in opening,
had been sent up by Register Bradford,
on his own motion, to determine whether
q certain instrument of writing was or
was not the last will aud testament Of
John Ferry, deceased. On February 18th,
1886, he said, John Ferry made his last
will and testament, leaving ell his
property to His wife, Mary A. Ferry.
Eight days later-Fabruary 2Gth, 1856 =
John Ferry died, and on March 4th, fol-
lowing his will was admitted to probate,
and letters testauentary thereon granted
10 Mary A. Ferry, the executrix. April
10th, 1889, Mary A. Ferry died without
leaving will, aud having no children the
property sh died possessed OF paused to
her relatives, and letterE Of administra-
ton were Issued on April 25th, to James
W. MoCloskey, hor father. Then, the
brothers, sisters and other relatives OF
John Ferry appeared before Register
Bradford and asked that the will be set
aside, on the ground that John Ferry was
incapable Of making will at the time he
signed the paper, only eight days before
his death. The estate was valued al
about $40, 900.
The will of John Ferry was produced
and Thomas Il. Lally one of the attest
ing witnesses, proved his own signature,
tuht VI IhtElOh NchAy, tAo SAhpk NAbuobo
and also that OF John Ferry, who, he
said, declared the paper, as hia last will
and testament, and seemed TO be- In 9
sound, dispensing stats of mind at the
time. Mr.. Lally wrote this will. He
also testified, in answer to Mr. Sprnnnce
that month or tao prior TO writing till
will he had written another will for Nr
Ferry, which was duly executed. Tn,
last time he cav this prior will wRa twi
or three days before MIR. FeFry's death
When he received from Mr.. Ferry in
Rtruoticns for the second will, Mr.. Ferry
handed him the first will, which he ex
aminsd and then handed it back.
Mr. Spruapcs wanted Mr.. Lally to de
tail the contents of the prior will, bu
Mr.. Lore objected.
The objection wGs sustained, but MIR
Bpruauoe was permitted to inquire II hi
provisions Of the last will differed from
those OF the frat. Mr.. Lslly said the.
did.
I'm what respect did they differ p in
quired Mr.. Spruauce.
But Mr.. Lore quickly objected to thi
roundabout way of obtaining interdicte
evidence and Mr.. Spruanos desisted.
Mr.. Lally said that when ha called OF
Mr.. Ferry the second time he took will
himthe notes thGt he had taken when MI
Ferry dictated to him the provisions O
the first will.
''Tell me what those notes contained,
Haid Mr.. Spruf nee.
Mr.. Lore onjested. Mr.. Lally said
had destroyed the notes. Mr.. Bpruanc
claimed that this fact gave him right t
demand proof OF thsir contents.
Mr. Bates and MIR. Lore PERSISTENT
opposed any testimony bearing upon tn
paper in question.
Pending discussion OF the point raised
the case went over uutil Fridry morning
The hearing OF the Ferry will comic
was continued in superior oouSt FIiia
morning, with ThomIs Il. Lslly, wi
less for the will, on the stand, undt
srosH-examination by MIR. apruaGoe, {
counsel against the Will. Mar. IIally sal
ae had an intimate business gcquaintanc
With the late Johu FarFy extending owe
period Of about Is years. Then MI
Sprusnoe gradually led the witness up
the point where he had prepared job
Ferry's first will, and Mr.. Lore renewe
his objections TO any testimony bearir
upon this document.
Mr.. SprusnCe took another tack IL
terring to MIR. Lslly's visit to John Ferr,
on February 18th, 1856, when the seoon
will WIGS drawn, he asked what transpirg
on that occasion. "He told rue" Sal
Mr.. Lslly, 'that he wanted to mai
another will. Then lac handed me Il
first will, and old me to write new OF
from it, making tho necessary change
] made few notes OF the desired chang