Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1890-12-11
sUpERfoR comm.

P. Dillon VS.. Bishops Becker and Curtis,
to recover, by mechanics lien proceed
ings, balance of 5000 alleged to be due
upon the construction of ST. Paul's
parochial school, went to the jury at this
mornings session Of superior court The
case was argued yesterday afternoon
week by Messrs. Sanborn and Bird for
the defendants and Mr.. Lore for the
plaintiff.
Chief Justice Comegys charged the
jury. He said the mechanics lien law
gave more trouble to the courts and
iuries than all the other statutes put
together. This was because many of its
provisions are inappropriate and incon-
gruous. The charge held that where a
release is signed it is conclusive, unless
it can be proved that the party signing
did not know what he was doing at the
time, signed through fraudulent repre-
sensations or under duress, or was in
capable in law of doing this act.
Whether Dillon, the plaintiff in this
case, signed the release of the school
building under any of these circum-
stances was question for the jury to
determine, and was the vital point in the
case.
AT 1880 o'clock the jury retired.
Announcement was made by Levi @.
Bird, of counsel for the plaintiff, of the
settlement of the case of Anna Maria
Racine VS.. the p, w. & b. r. II. Co.;
judgment for plaintiff.
The case of Henry o. Collins VS.. Gal
lager, Kitselman 81 Fox, was announced
as having been settled by the confession
of Judgment for the plaintiff for $232
The case of Timothy g. Hurlock vs.
Alvan Allen, marked for trial, was re-
ferred for trial by referees, to be selected
by counsel.
A jury was next drawn to try the
case Of the Vaughn Morocco Machine
Company of Salem, Mass, VS.. Isaac
Trimble Quigley. Bates Sc Harrington
for plaintiff and William G. Spruance
for defendant.
The action is TO recover the price of a
hairing and fleshing machine, for use in
morocco manufactures, which was fur
nishcd the defendant by the plaintiff.
The machine was set up on August
18th, 1883, and operated for 25 days,
when the morocco factory, on Septem-
Der 9th, was seriously damaged by fire.
After the fire the defendant refused to
accept the machine. The price of the
machine was $3.50.
Charles Il. Vaughn of the plaintiff
corporation, testified that Mr.. Quigley
consented to accept machine on trial
for 30 days, and if it proved satisfactory
at the end of that time to accept it The
machine was set up on August 18th and
the witness remained three days, in
structing man in its operation. The
machine operated successfully and to
Mr.. Quigley's satisfaction, whereupon
the witness took his departure From
that time until after the fire no word
was received from Mr.. Quigley to the
effect that the machine was not salts
factory. The first intimation of dis
satisfaction was letter of date of
October Sd, 1888, nearly month after
the fire, returning the bill for the
been given few days previously to the
agent TO take it out. Mr.. Vaughn said
he had not seen Mr.. Quigley since Sep
TENDER 18th, two days after the fire, and
that no complaint was eyer made to him
that it was not satisfactory. The machine
was sent back to Salem on the 10Th of
November, hut the company refused to
take it out Of the freight house where il
still is.
With this testimony the plaintiff
rested. The defence was that the ma
chine was merely put in on trial and
that it was so defective as to materially
fail in making good the promises of its
manufacturers.
Pending the taking of testimony for
the defence u recess was taken until
$50 O'clock
The jury in the case of Francis p. Dillon
vs. Bishops Becker and Curtis, in the suit
over the payment for st. Paul's parochial
school, in the afternoon rendered
verdict for the plaintiff for $500,
Hearing of the case of the Vaughn
Morocco Manufacturing Company VS.. Isaac
Trimble Quigley was continued. The de-
PENDANT took the stand and testified that
the plaintiffs irgent called on him and
begged him to take a machine on trial,
which he consented to do. The machine
was put in, but it was nearly a week before
ii began to work. lie denied having ever
stated that the machine worked in salts
factory manner. II cut the skins and did
more harm than good. When Mr.. Vaughn
next called he told him the machine was
not satisfactory, but Mr.. Vaughn made no
answer. lie received u bill, but sent il back
and afterwards returned the machine.
George Bukins, Mr. Quigley's superin-
tendent, said the machine did not work as
Mr. Vaughn represented it and was not
ut all satisfactory. He notified Mr.. Vaughn
by mail but received no response. The
machine was never of any benefit TO Mr..
Quigley.
Court adjourned until 10 o'clock Friday
morning.
Testimony for the defence in the suit of
the Vaughn Morocco Machine Company
vs.. /. Trimble Qnigley was confined at
Friday mornings session ofsuperior court.
II all went to show that the machine for
which the plaintiff seeks to recover was
very unsatisfactory in its operations and
failed to do its work properly.
Martin MulrooneY, the bcamsman at |
Quigley's morocco factory, who was in
sructed by Mr.. Vaughn Of the plaintiff |
firm, in the workings Of the machine, was
among those who testified to its worthless
ness. Mulrnoncy told of an action by
Vaughn that savprcd very much of bride. |
He gave me dollar one day." said the |
witness, 'and said If YOU make that ma
chine work and pass it for me I'll give you |
more when | come back" Murooney |
said the machine tore the goaiskins and !
that although he gave il fair trial it |
would not work II was no good to Mr.. |
Quigley and only ruined his stock when |
in operation.
Mr.. Vaughn was called in rebuttal and |
denied certain statements made by Mr.. |
Quigley in his testimony.
Court took recess until go O'Clock lin
the afternoon.
Argument was begun in superior court
Friday afternoon, in the case of tie
Vaughn Morocco Machine Company VS. /.
Trmble Quigley. $. A, NIaeallister who
is associated with Mayor Harrington for
the plaintiff, addressed the court upon the
law and briefly argued before the jury.
Charles NJ. Curtis followed with preseil-
tation to the court of the law us relied
upon by the defendant and when court
rcassemblcd at . O'Clock this morning he
addressed the jury. William G. s;pruance
closed the defendants argument and Mayor