Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-06-04

Proceedings of the May Term Dragging
Along slowly--Argument in the Bennett
NVfII faa.

| tVbGIl tDUhISs
Proceedings of the May Term Dragging
| Along Slowly--Argument in the Bennett
Will Case.
When court resumed proceedings, at Q. &c
! O'Clock yesterday afternoon week, the case
of the Phoenix Lock Company, VS.. the Ca
pelle Hardware Company, was again taken
| up
Edward Jefferies Philema Chandler
Robert o. Janvier and Samuel Vail, testi-
| fled as experts for the defence, that they
had examined the sash lock, and that in
their opinion it was worthless and would
not do what the makers claimed for it.
They also said that they did not think il
would hold a heavy sash without weights
and cords. This closed the testimony for
the defendant, and John G. Bassell was
called in rebuttal.
He testified that he had sold hundreds
of dozens of the locks in all parts of the
United States, and that he had never had
any complaint about them. He was handed
a circular by Mr.. Nields, setting forth their
merits, which he read from the witness
box, and said he would endorse ever word
it said.
This closed the testimony on both sides
and Mr.. Hoffecker made the opening argti-
ment to the court and jury for the plain
tiifs, He spoke until Ais O'Clock, when
court adjourned until 10 o'clock Thursday
morning.
AS soon as court convened at 10 O'Clock
on Thursday, argument in the case of
the Phoenix Lock Works VS., the Gapelle
hardware Company, was resumed.
J, \. Hoifecker, Esq, who was speaking
when court adjourned yesterday week
addressed the court, and asked that the
jury should be charged on certain points
which he submitted
lie was followed by Benjamin Nields.
ESD, for the defence, who spoke until IL IS
O'Clock, when Mr.. Hoffecker commenced
the closing argument for the plaintiff. He
contended that as there was nothing said
IN the contract when the goods should be
delivered, the Capelle Company was liable
Tor the price of the goods whenever they
might be delivered
The court charged the jury that while
the amount involved was small, there were
q number of law questions involved. If
the jury believed the goods had been
shipped within a reasonable time it was
the duty of the buyer to be on hand TO re.
ceive them, and il he was not or did not
be there, or have an agent to receive them,
he was liable to suit He concluded at
1885 O'clock, when the jury retired.
Several motions were heard and consid-
cred
Very little business was transacted at
Thursday afternoons session of the super-
lOl NpuIts t1GNtIdl luOblOnS were neufu.
Among them being one by A. Il. Sanborn,
Esq, to set aside a sheriff's sale. At4.l5
o'clock the jury in the case of the Phoenix
Lock Company vs.. the Capelle Hardware
Company came in and as they said it was
for them to agree they were dis
charged until l0oclock Friday morning. A
few minutes later court adjourned until
the same time.
Superior court convened at 10 o'clock
Friday morning. As there were no trial
cases ready the jurors were discharged
until 10 o'clock Monday morning. Sew
eral rules We're asked for and motions
some Of which were granted,
others set aside, and the remainder held
under advisement. A 10 o'clock court
adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday
Superior court reconvened at 10
o'clock on Monday, with all the Judges
present. Several motions on rules and
were heard, but no business
of any Importance was transacted. The
Bennett will case was taken up on an
appeal from the decision of the register
of wills. William S. Hilles, ESQ, ap-
peared for the appellant, and Benjamin
Nields, Esq, for the respondents. A
vast amount of type written testimony
was read by the attorneys, and the case
was continued up to the time of the
noon recess.
When court convened Monday after
noon, the consideration of the Bennett |
will case was resumed, and the entire |
afternoon consumed in hearing the tyne |
written testimony. AT 4.t5 O'Clock
court adjourned until 10 o'clock Tues
lay morning.
All the judges were present when
,ourt resumed on Tuesday and imme-
lately after the opening the names of
he special jurors, summoned in the
'ase of Writ VS.. the B. 81 O. Railroad
company were called, after which the
GLOWING were drawn to try the case:
lanes Hirst, John r. Talley, Frank
3eybold, James w. Ware, Joel Cloud,
calvin w. Crossan, George w. Eckels,
\. p. Carnagie, William II. Shippers, N,
iraves, John p. Chears and Edward L.
lark.
After the jurors were sworn they were
discharged until 10 o'clock tomorrow
and the remainder of the panel
discharged from further attendance.
Very little was done at Tuesday
fternoon's session of court until 3
'clock, when the case Of Palmer
Brothers vs. William jerks Fell was
aiken up for trial and a jury drawn.
'eniamln Nields, Esq, appeared for
he plaintiffs and Charles b. Lore, ESQ,
Or the defendants.
The case, as outlined by Mr.. Nields,
bowed that this is an action to recover
1880, with interest for two years, for
% settees at $3.50 each. These were
rdered by Mr.. Crooks, under instruc-
ons from Mr.. Fell, for use at Brandy |
line Springs and are still in use there. 4
It's alleged that they were to have been I
aid for within 80 days, and that there ,
'ould have been a discount of 10 per
mt. They were shipped on May 26th,
sSS, and reached the springs May 30th.
he defendant persistently refused to '
ny for them, on the ground that eight
ere broken in transit but no notice of
lis fact was given the plaintiffs until c
ugust of 1888. n
Gilbert r. Palmer, a member OF the n
aintitfs' firm, testified that Mr.. Crooks
lied at their place of business in refer a
ice to the settees. He was shown a b
mple and told the price, and the firm "
forwards received letter from Mr.. ii
all, in which he ordered them to ship il
e goods. The witness said the settees b
tipped were fully equal in every re- il
ect to the sample shown Mr. Crooks. |
They were shipped May 26th, and, il
cording to the agreement. were to have Il