Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1890-02-27

train moved with O jerking motion from
the inatant IL started, and he did not see
any conductor or brakeman In charge or
trying to apply the brakes to stop the
train.
Or. ID. W. Maull testified 10 the extent
OF StFadleY'S injuries, which neoesaitated
the amputation Of his leg. The bones
wee crushed in several places and he
suffered very much.
Edward Ashenbaoh, Alfred d. Luke,
William Brown, Daniel w. Fletcher,
workmen OF the Pullman works, all tesli-
fed that the train which caused Strad-
ley's accident atarted on with sudden
and violent jsFk.
The case then went over until 10
o'clock Tuesday morning.
At .. 40 O'Clock the Jury in the Ferry
will case came into court, and in answer
to Prothonotary MRzwsll's query as to
whether "a certain paper or instrument
OF writing L.sring date February 18th,
1886, is or is not the last will aud testa-
plent of John Ferry, deceased" the fore
mRn answered "it is"
Encouragement Biggs, OF counsel for
the contestants, had the jury politd and
then gave notice that he would move for
new trial and file reasons within the
prescribed time.
Associate Judge Houston was unavoid-
ably delayed on Tuesday and the supe-
rior court did not convene until 1915
o'clock. The examination OF witnesses
for the plaintiff in the damage suit OF
Stradley vs.. the p, W. d L. Il. Il. Com
pany waa resumed.
Andrew ]. Drake, general foreman Of
the Pullman palace car shops in this city,
testified that the necessary shifting at the
shops was done by p, w. IL b. railroad
engine, which was, or should have been
in charge Of crew OF p, w. & b. rail-
road men. lie presumed that suoh crew
had charge OF the engine on the day Of
the accident.
David Brooks, colored assisted to move
the box car on the day of the accident
from the transfer table To the track. He
until he saw 1t going towards Mr.. Stradley.
Abraham Morgan, coiored. and Harry
| w. Richardson also saw the accident.
William II. Appleton testified regarding
the box car.
Lawrence Dugan had seen cars pulled
from the transfer table by shifting en-
| CINE and had seen them leave the track
as they loft the table.
John f. Doyle, Waterman ct the Pull
man car work, testified to the moving of
the cara.
At O'Clock court adjourned until 2.30
O'Clock in the afternoon.
At the Afternoons session of the
superior court, the hearing of evidence
for the plaintiff in the Stradley damage
suit against the p, w. 81 Is. railroad was
continued.
John Il. Coyle, who was on the stand
when court adjourned at 1 O'Clock, was
put through searching cross-examina-
ton.
w. II. Ryan testified to the track left
by the box car as it left the rails. He had
examined tue planking and tisB and
noted the marks of the wheel fiange.
Isaiah NJ. Cook gave evidence ps to the
contents of the car, and to whom it was
consigned.
| W. Il. McKhig, assistant foreman at
the Pullman works, and Walter o.
Ohevens give evidence as to the accident.
Frank j. BrCest, Mrs. jennie Broest
and Mrs. Jennie Beckta testified TO the
intense pain Stradley had suffered for
weeks after the accident.
Charles G. StrGiley. the plaintiff, was
recalled TO say that he heard no warning
of apy danger until too late to escape. lie
still suffered pain from the wound.
After hearing two other witnesses the
plaintiffs counsel rested their evidence.
II was now O'Clock and Senator Gray
asked that the case be adjourned until
yesterday. His colleague, MIR. Massey,
was far from well, and but 15 or 20 min
utes would BIS lost the time for adjourn
ing being 30 o'clock.
Mr.. Bird, evidently suspected some
trick, Tor he objectad; said that there had
no indications Of the nature OF tho line
Of defence, and the defenos should open,
30 that the plaintiff could know what
their line was, and be prepared to give
evidence in rebuttal. The court decided
to adjourn and did so at 4 o'clock.
Counsel for the defendant in the datn-
age case Of Stradley VS.. the p, w. & b.
Railroad Company, exploded bomb in
the PLAINTIFF camp yesterday morning, by
making q motion for nop-suit, and
backing it up with strong array Of
propositions and authorities of law.
Mr.. Bride suspicions that something
was coming, when he wanted the defence
to open last night, proved correct. The
motion caught the plaintiffs counsel I'M
eKpectedly and arguments and authorities
in reply had to be made up and selected
at very short notice.
George v. Massey, Esq, made the
motion. Ills ground was that the evil
deuce for the plaintiff did not prove
negligence on the part Of the defendant
company; that when the evidence given
is insufficient to warrant verdict for
the plaintiff, the court may not submit
the Gaze to the jury, but may direct the
jury to render verdict for the de-
fendsnt. Mr.. Massey argued that it was
in tue power of tho court to decide
whether the evidence was sufficient to
prove the fact sought TO be established.
II was admitted that the engine bs-
logged to the p, w. i i. railroad but
the track belonged TO the Pullman Com
Pany and was under its super vision, and
The whole matter took place on the prop
erty OF the Pullman Company. The con-
duotor Of the engine was notified that one
truck of the car was on the permanent
track and one on the transfer table, and
also to go ahead, that everything was oil
right. But there was nothing to chow
that the moving Of the cur by means OF
steam was negligent act. The evidence
for the plaintiff showed that the truck
ran of the track OF the joint between tbs
permanent track and that on the transfer
table; therefore, IL was caused through
some defect in the structure Of the track,
and not negligence on the part of the
railroad company. It was IL O'Clock
when Mr.. Massey concluded.
Albert Constable, Esq, for the plaintiff
answered the arguments of Mr.. Massey,
speaking until O'Clock, when court ad-
journed. He argued that the railroad had
been negligent in that the engine ran DO
fur aftap fna INV Inft tho kraaE op1 kba{