Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-06-18
AN APPEAL TO THE COURT.
How Churchman Seeks to be Re-
stored to the Assessment.


That 1000 Others We're Omitted as He
= Was.
The session of court yesterday after.
noon week was devoted to argumentgin
the case of Writ VS.. the Baltimore &
Ohio Railroad Company. AS soon as
court convened on Thursday morn
ing, Mr.. Higgins resumed for the plain
tiff, and addressed the Jury until 1913
O'Clock. The court then discharged the
jury until 10 O'Clock on Friday morn
ing when they will be charged, and the
case submitted
The appeal from the decision of the
register of wills in the Bennett will case
was granted, and the matter will be
passed upon by jury at the September
term of coust After transacting some
miscellaneous business court adjourned
until 2.S0.o'clock Thursday afternoon.
Thursday afternoons session Of court
convened at go o'clock, with the chief
Justice and associate judges OH the bench.
CONTRARY to general expectation, the appli-
cations for liquor licenses were taken up.
The first case called was that of Patrick
higgins, who is applying for a new place
at Lord and Spruce streets Mr.. Prickett,
on behalf of the Law and Order Society,
presented a general remonstrance, which
stated that the place was not needed, and
would be detrimcnt to the neighborhood
He also called several witnesses, all of
whom stated that while they had nothing
against the applicant, they did not think
the place was needed. The applicant was
represented by Walter II. Hayes and IL. @.
Turner, Esqs., who argued that the place
would be an accommodation to the public,
and that saloon was needed at that place
The next case taken up was that Of
Franz Ginglebach, who is applying for a
license for new place at Fifth and scott
streets. II. G.. Turner and Frank Riggs,
Esqs., appeared for him, but Mr.. Prckett
presented remonstrance, and called sew
eral witnesses to show that there are now q
sufficient number of places in that
neighborhood TO accommodate everybody
mccormick 4 Brother, proprietors of an
old established house at Water and Market
streets, were the next applicants consid-
cred. Mr.. Prickett had a remonstrance
signed by Warner X Co, and number of
others, which stated that the place is d
nuisance, and makes considerable trouble
in that vicinity. Walter H. HAYES, H. G.
Turner, Frank Biggs and II. H Ward. Esos.,
who appeared for the applicants brought
witnesses to show that the place is CON
Quoted in quiet and orderly manner, and
that Warner Il Co frequently sent there to
secure hands to work in their yards ana on
the wharf
The next application considered was that
of Elan Page of Port Penn. Mr.. prickett
said that this license had been refused so
often that he did not think it worth while
TO summon any witnesses. He contended
that while it was licensed, liquor was sold
contrary to law, and that il was an ele-
ment Of disorder, II. C. Turner Esq. APP
peared for the applicant and produced
several witnesses to show that the place
had been conducted in quiet and orderly
manner during the time il had a license.
and also that hotel was needed. as tn re-
was not another place within four miles Of
Port Penn,
George Sharp of No. 600 Pine street was
called next, when Mr.. Prickett stated to
the court that this place was turned down
sharp. again applied, and upon being
turned down. got his wife to apply, but
she too was refused He did not think the
place was needed in that vicinity and
hoped that the court would not grant the
application. The applicant was represented
by Walter II. Hayes and II. c. Turner,
Esq, both OF whom argued in his favor.
N.Y. Turner said that Sharp is an old
soldier, wounded in the service and if he
was not entitled to license he did not
know who was.
The last case considered was that of
George M. Bennett, who made application
last term for license for a place at Mar
shallton. He was also represented BY MIR.
Turner, who brought several witnesses to
show that hotel was urgently needed Mt
that place, While this case was still pend
ing, court adjourned, shortly after 5
O'Clock, until 10 o'clock Friday morning.
Associate Judge Charles NJ Cullen
charged the jury in the damage case Of
Writ versus the Baltimore & Ohio Rail-
road Company inthe superior court Friday
morning, He reviewed the evidence in
detail, stating that the plaintiff had made
erroneous statements as to the presence Of
Hohson, said statements being not cor.
FEDERATED by any other witness All the
witnesses swore that the shifter was
pushed back slowly. The plaintiff asks
Tor damages on the ground that he was in
cured while i'll the defendants employ
through the negligence Of the defendant.
Inc defendant says il was Wirts own
negligence.
The most important and the vital point
brought out in the charge was the appliCa.
bility Of the law of masters and Of fellow.
servants to this case, 1t is the duty of the
master, he said, to provide a safe place,
safe materials and skilful workmeu. Then
II any injury result through the act Of an
employe, the defendant is not liable. If,
while servant of railroad company is
running an engine, fellOw-servaut IS in.
Jured, the company is not lilble. Fellow
servants are worKmen in the employ of
the same company in the same pursuit.
1t matters not what rank they may bear to
each other. one employee must assume
the risk of injury at the hands OF another.
FOR instance, telegraph operator for a
railroad conn my may make a mistake
which results in the injury ol an
other employe, the injured man cannot
recover from the company. There must
be something to show that the master was
deficient IN tn discharge of duty. In this
case what was the companys negligence
The evidence shows that the machinery
and material were good and the wurkmea
skilful. There is no proof Of any negli
gence on the part Of the conn ny. Admit
for the SAX Of argument that notice
was given, and through the inadvertence
or carelcsSness the parties running the
train or gang. Mr.Wirt was injured. he has
no. right 70 recover. No negligence could
exist except that Of contribltory negli
gence on the part of the plaintiff. Under
the facts We consider he Is a fellow servant
and the company is not liable,
In regard to the paper offered in evil
dence, purported TO he signed by the
plaintiff and 10 ne a release of the plain.
tiif from liability, We have to saw, that If
1t is proved, the jury could not render a
verdict for the plaintiff.
The charge lasted IS minutes and was
listened to attentivey.
Senator Higgins for the plaintiff adj
dressed the court, saying that If he under.
stood the charge, it practically directed the
Jury TO render verdict for the defendant.
He did not expect hat he would be in
structed 10 take the case to the higher
court, but would enter an exception 10 Inc
charge, in case he should be instructed 10
appeal.
The jury was out for q minutes, and re-.
turned verdict for the defendant. The
court discharged the jury from any fur.
Their attendance.
AN ATTACHMENT FOR ALIMoNY.
Levi Z. Bird attorney for AnnieC. Can't
well in the divorce suit of Caatwell versus
antwell, stated that it would be impOssi-
hia "a ..t /.