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


troll of her husband, and as such was the
case, she was certainly liable for any
debts contracted or agreements entered
into concerning this business in her own
name. In closing he opposed the mo-
ton vigorously and contended that the
case should certainly go TO a jury
The closing argument was made by
Mr.. Hilles, who advocated his motion,
ana cited a number of authorities in
support of 1t. He agreed with Mr.. Lore
that a married woman could acquire
property by purchase, but claimed that
she could not do so by lease. In this
case the property was held by lease and
therefore the agreement entered into
with the plaintiff was imperative, and
as she had no right to make such
lease, the seizure of the goods was
illegal and he had no ground for suit.
When Mr.. Hilles concluded the court
announced that decision would be
given Tuesday morning.
The special jury in the case of John
Mcdowell vs.. the Mayor and Council Of
Wilmington, were discharged from fur
ther attendance, as the suit has been
settled.
At o'clock court adjourned until 10
O'Clock Tuesday morning.
AS soon as court convened at 10 O'Clock
on Tuesday, decision was given re-
fusing the motion for non-suit in the
case of Samuel Speakman VS. Mrs Mary
| Carter.
Mr.. Hilles then made brief opening
to the Jury, in which he claimed that
the plaintiff had used misrepresentation
in selling the goods, and was guilty of
| fraud. He said that this could be proved
by the witness, which he would cali.
Mrs. Mary Carter, the defendant, tes-
stfied that the goods were bought
from Mr.. Speakman, and that he
stated the Garnet was nil wool Int II
had not been used long before II was
found to be half cotton. The remain
der of the goods were misrepresented
fully as badly, and the witness claimed
| that she had paid more money than the
| plaintiff had given her credit for. A
| second agreement was presented to her,
| which she as a matter of Justice to her
husband, signed as Mrs. Thomas Carter.
On the Sth Of April Mr.. Speakman sent
an officer to her house to seize The goods.
and even took bed from under her
sick child. She alleged that when the
goods were bought, her husband was
present and told MI. Speakman to let
her have all the goods She wanted and
he would he responsihle for the biIl
All the money from the hoarders with
one or two exceptions, was paid to her
husband and he recripted for II
Edward ID. Price after heinz sworn
was shown lease, which he identified
az having been signed by Mr.. Carter as
the renter of the premises, No, 714
French street.
Thomas Carter Inc husband If no
defendant was called Int ~ M Inre
objected to lis testimony being taken
and the objection was Sustained Ia In
the stand
Mr.. IIilles rested with this fitness
ana Samuel Speakman tbe nlaintitf was
called In reb,ttai He dnnied Mr. car.
| teris statement thot ,vban ia roods
were bougbt ber husband told I'm, ~
let nor have What sha ,vontad ond IL
would he resnansibia e. ~ 5; IL ~ ~
also said mat he would ~ Nave ia iot hin,
have anv ' gnads t. 0''N - ''"'' ~ ~
Edwayrd f7s Il Rb;rebort yos raoo,,od
and also contrad;ntad sayorai IL, ,,,'..n ~
nai,ts that Mr. Sorto IN iusgi ~. ~.
EharIos G,,aai,r -. 'ss niiiI ~
sa;J tI,at NJ Sn., 30 ~ %iIo uH.lo'' ali9
III, 49,, 80, 20, w. hau tetIi pula
nliu "ny AioiieS oii account Vi these
Nv E,;,aho.,, rha,,, -,
] tliinaoe. i teihi'aon gave tessi-
I iy - $3.50 " w o5ipeL IA .he
ttnt loI IN oelns sPo;lc.' puI aehleu
enas I. sue nav eyer eaIIieu any ashes
oN tr,,! ~