Bridgeton pioneer., 1890-05-15


oysters planted. There could be no
title" in the ground, and such was the
law.
The oysters that Captain Newcomb
planted, and which Captain Daniels
gathered and sold, belonged not to
Daniels but to Newcomb. They were
sold by Daniels, and realized the sum
of $7s2.11. They were not Daniels
oysters but Newcomb's. The argu-
ment went on in this line and on the
assumption too, that Captain Newcomb
had full and complete control of the
ground upon which he had planted his
Chesapeake oysters.
Judge Reed charged the jury that
the first question to decide was whose
ground was this in question:"
The ground" was defined as the
place where Newcomb's oysters were
planted, in the case now on trial
If the ground was the same that
Daniels had bought of Garrison some
years before, the second question was,
chad he title to it at the time that
Newcomb planted on it."
The law as to planting was laid down
by the Judge as to title. In order to
hold title to the ground, there must be
planting of oysters for growth and
increase. "Who did this kind of plant
ing?' was the next question to be de-
cided.
If Captain Daniels did not do such
planting, then he was a trespasser
when he went upon the ground and
carried off Newcomb's oysters.
II charge you therefore that, if you
find that Newcomb had planted those
oysters on his own ground he has a
right to recover the full value and also
the damage accrued. But if you find
that these oysters were on Captain
Daniels ground then that don't give
Captain Daniels the right to take
Newcomb's oysters, sell them and
pocket the money; but if he had Bays
planted there, he had right to use
the usual means to gather them," was
a portion of the Judges charge. The
charge was decidedly favorable for the
Jury to bring in proportionate ver-
dict for Newcomb. The Jury retired
at five minutes to twelve o'clock.
The next case was Cedarville case,
and will be the last one tried this week,
the jurors not on panels, all being ex-
cused until next Tuesday morning.
THURSDAY AFTERNOON.
Before Court met this afternoon, the
jury in the ewcomb-Daniels case
had found verdict for the plaintiff,
Mr.. Newcomb, with proportionate
verdict, as was indicated in the PIo-
NEER report yesterday. Fhe verdict
gave Newcomb S5OO00 compensation
for the oysters taken. The Cedarville
case mentioned in yesterdays report
was that of Louis Bunel against John
w. Coney, who was charged with be-
ing the father of his daughter Hopes
one year old child. Mr.. Bunel lives in
Cedarville, and is a ship-carpenter,a and
John w. Coney is nice looking
young man who then lived at Rosen-
hayn. The suit was for the recovery of
$4,000 damages.
Louis Bunel took the stand and re-
lated some of the circumstances, testi-
flying that Hope Bunel was his daugh-
ter.
Miss Bunel was called and testified
that John w. Coney was the father of
her child, which was born April 9th,
1899.
Her testimony was given in sincere
and straightforward manner.
Judge Hoagland had the plaintiffs
case in charge and left the bench to
try it. Ex.Assemblyman Thos. w.
Trenchard and John s. Mitchell con-
Quoted the defense.
John w. Coney denied all the facts
which she had sworn to, and also the
date, July 14th, as being the date when
he visited her; he declared it was July
20th when he was at her house.
"A numper OF witnesses were called to
prove that it was July 2Sth when John
was at Buners, but it was Miss Bunels
testimony that it was July 14th, and
she fixed this as the date by her
mothers birthday which was July 18th
and this visit occurred on the Satur-
day night following, which would be
July 14th.
The entire evidence given by the
plaintiff and her witnesses, though not
tit for these columns, was very strong
against the young man.
The girl swore thai Coney had Of
fered to marry her and asked her to be
his wife on that July eve. She be-
lieved him, but he had not kept his
word. One of the witnesses for the
defense, Walter Foster, being called
and not appearing, Judge Reed ordered