Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-02-19

and that it was to be sent here at their
expense, leaving il optional with the
company TO keep it or not. There was
no understanding that they should buy
u. The coach was unsatisfactory and
Mr.. Nicholas was SO notified.
James L. Burtnet denied telling Mr..
Gibbs that the coach was satisfactory or
saying to him that if he would Jake
stock in the company they would take
two more coaches. The witness had no
authority to make any purchases with
out the consent of the directors He was
told that the coach was very nnsatis-
factory, as 1t was too heavy. When Mr..
Nicholas called on him he told him tie
carriage did not suit, and he offered to
furnish them with some of another kind.
Court adjourned to 10 o'clock Friday
morning.
Friday mornings session of superior
court convened at 10 o'clock and re-
sumed the case of Nicholas & Co., VS..
the Wilmington Transfer Company.
Mr.. j. Il. BURNETT was recalled and
cross-examined at length by TiIghman
johnson, Esq, counsel for the plaintiffs.
In answer TO his questions he said that
the hanson had proved very unsatis-
factory in every respect, but that he did
not complain to Mr.. Glib, or Mr..
Nicholas as he knew it was only on
trial for 80 days.
Mr.. Casperson said that he saw Mr.
Nicholas at the Clayton House in this
city, and that he was told at that time
that the hanson was not satisfactory.
Mr.. Nicholas was very anxious that the
company should try some other kind of
carriage.
l l.. e.
the defence, and Mr.. johnson recalled
Mr.. Nicholas, in rebuttal. He was GER
tain that Mr.. Taylor was not present at
the time he had the interviews with
Mr. BURNETT.
sides, and, pending argument, court adj
journed until $50 p. m.
Friday afternoons session of SUI
perior court convened at $50 O'clock,
when Mr.. Ward resumed his argument
for the defence in the case of Nicholas
vs.. the transfer company. When he
finished, Tilghman Johnston made the
closing argument for the plaintiffs, and
after u brief charge by Judge Cullen,
the case was submitted to the Jury.
They retired at 3.45 O'Clock and came in
at 4.05 O'Clock with verdict in favor of
the plaintiffs for 1851 IL, being the full
amount claimed, with interest The
! jury were then discharged until Monday
and court adjourned until 10 o'clock
Saturday morning.
The entire session of superior court
Saturdt Y m rning, was taken upin hear
Ilg rules and motions. There were six
rules granted on writs of possession, and
quite number OF petitions and atfa-
dayits filed. After disposing of these
cases, court adjourned until 10 o'clock
Monday morning. Nothing of public
interest was heard, and all the cases
acted on were of private nature.
Superior court resumed proceedings
at 10 o'clock Monday morning, and after
several cases had been called and con
tinued, on account of the parties not
being ready, jury was drawn and the
case of Samuel Speakman VS.. Mary
Garter taken up for trial, with Lore &
Emmons for the plaintiff, and William
S. IIilles for the defence.
This action is brought to prove owner
ship in certain household goods pur-
chased by the defendant from the plain
tiff, on instruments, October 14th, 1880
The defendant paid specified amount
the day the goods were purchased, and
signed an agreement TO pay So week
until the entire bill was paid. In this
agreement it was stated that these pay
nents were to be considered as rent and
that If they were not paid the plaintiff
would have the right to take the goods
back.
Ten dollars were paid at the time the
goods were bought, and $50 afterwards.
On April 9Th, 1890, the plaintiff seized
the goods on a writ of replevin, but only
recovered part of them. These were
in bad condition and would have to
be sold at a deprecated price as being
second hand
These facts were testified to by Samuel
| Speakman, who was cross-examined at
length by Mr.. lIilles.
Miss Elizabeth Thompson was called
and stated that she knows the de-
PENDANT, Mrs. Carter, and went with her
husband and child as dodgers at Mrs.
Carriers on October 10th, 1889. She re-
manned there in that way for two weeks
and then took table board until January
18th, 1890, She knew when the deputy
sheriff came to take the goods, and knew
they were in a very bad condition.
When the witness commenced to
board with Mrs. Carter, all the arrange
ments in regard to price We're made
with her. The witness, however, knew
that her husband, by request of Mrs.
Garter, paid the board to Mr. Carter
and took his receipt for it.
Miss Ada Tong, a clerk employed by
the plaintiff, testified to the fact of Mrs.
Carter purchasing the goods, but said
that in making out the contract she
wrote, by error, Mr. instead of Mrs.
Carter as being the buyer. This, how
ever, was rectitied afterwards
Edward d. Rhinehart, another clerk
in Mr.. Speakman's employ, remembered
that Mrs. Carter bought the goods. He
had gone to her house a number of
times, trying to collect the money, but
was never able to get more than $40.
Elwood Thompson testified that he,
with his wife and child, first lodged, and
then boarded with Mrs Carter He then
corroborated all his wife had testified
to concerning the goods and the way
the board was paid
At ] o'clock court adjourned until
$50 o'clecI Monday afternoon.
Superior court reconyened Monday
afternoon at $50 o'clock.
The case of Samuel Speakman VS..
Mrs. Mary Carter, was again taken up,
and Edward ID. Rhinehart and Charles
| Speakman examined for the plaintiff |
Their testimony, in reference to the pur-
chase of the goods by Mrs. Carter, was
about the same as that given by the pre-
ceding witnesses, and when Mr., Speak
man left the stand Mr.. Lore announced |
that he would rest his case
Mr. Hilles opened for the defence by