Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-05-26

! pered with mercy and, as the Jury had
recommended the prisoner to the mercy of
the court, he asked that she receive the
utmost leniency.
| In imposing sentence Judge Cullen stated
thar owing to the mitigating circumstances
IN the case the court would be lenient. He
| then sentenced the prisoner TO two months
in Jail and fine of 5000. The maximum
| punishment in the case is seven years and
$500 fine. The prisoner was then removed
to the basement cells, to be taken to New
Castle jail.
Thomas Davis made application for the
issuance of rule to show cause why the
sheriff's sale of the hotel property of Elan
| and Hester Page at Port Penn should not
be set aside on the ground that the price
| obtained for the hotel was inadequate and
| that the sale of the same was not sutfi-
GENTLY advertised.
ii. ii. Ward appeared before the court
on Friday and asked for decision in
the case involving the jurisdiction of the
municipal court. The case was that of the
State VS.. Andrew Casey, charged with the
violation of the liquor law by selling on
Sunday. Casey was tried before Judge
Ball in the municipal court and the court
imposed upon him fine. II. III. Ward
! ana Henry q. Turner appeared for Casey
and the question of law raised by them
was whether or not the municipal court
| has jurisdiction over infractions of the
law by licensed dealers. Counsel took out
a writ of certiorari to the upper court.
The court announced that in the case of
the Charles Mullin Company, application
being made at the last term of court for an
equitable distribution of the funds, an
issuance would be sent to the jury and a
| determination be reached ut the present
! term. The persons to whom judgments
| were originally confessed are represented
by Willard salisbury, Jr., and Charles b.
Lore, while Benjamin Nields and Lewis C..
| Vandegrift represent the creditors, who
claim an equal share of the distribution of
the funds.
In the mechanics lien case brought
against Eden Hall Company at the last
| term of court, the court announced to
Lewis z: Vandegrift, one Of the counsel
for the plaintiff, that decision would be
reached at this term OF court.
Court took recess until the afternoon.
| Vixen county court convened Monday
Anthony Higgins, attorney for the defence
| in the case of Hysore h Son VS.. /. Trimble
| Quigley, stated that he would lay the legal
| ground for continuance of the case. Mr..
| Quigley, the defendant, was called and
swore that an important witness. Benjamin
Croft, was absent in Maryland and that
| he did not know he was absent from the
| State until last Saturday. Witness had
been in Boston for the past week, he said.
| Mr.. Bird-"What do you propose to
| prove by this witness?"
Mr.. Higgins-"l object, your honors."
| Mr.. Quigiey-'Ill let you know later
Mr.. Bird Gronically)--"Yes; well you'll
let me know sooner"
| Mr.. Bird then stated that this was a case
| which had been at issue fer nine months
and for three sessions Of court He said it
| involved much the interests Of his client,
and should be brought to n speedy trial
without further delay. Mr.. Bird then
said "lf your honors should dream of
continuing this case, surely am entitled
to know what they propose to prove by
| this missing Witness"
| The court, after the discussion, directed
that the witness answer the questions put
| to him by Mr. Bird, who then asked:
What do you propose to prove by this
witness?
Mr.. Quigley-"I propose to show that it
| was Mr.. Hysore's own fault"
Mr.; Bird-"How, Mr.. Hysore's own
| fault?"
Mr.. Quigley-"I mean Mr.. IIysore
| agreed to take all the water out of the hair
used in the establishment, ard that he
| failed to do it,"
Mr.. Bird then held that the defence had
laid no legal ground for a continuance,
and stated that If the case was allowed to
| go over I'VE would never know in Chris
tendon when a case would come to trial
The court reserved decision.
Attorney general Nicholson then moved
| for continuance of the case of tine State
VS.. Eugene dupont Burns. on the ground
| of the absence of material witnesses for
the State. Mr.. Nicholson stated that the
| witnesses at present were outside the juris-
diction Of the State. The State was not
prepared to go to trial without these wit
nesses.
| Mr.. Ward, who represents the prisoner,
stated that he was ready to go to trial and
wanted to put himself on record as OPP
| posing the,continuance. 1t is understood
that the, principle witness for the State
| who is absent is Jimmy" Moore, one of
the leading witnesses in the trial OF the
| Clarks and William j. Gibbons. now serv-
ing term in New Castle Jail for burning
| the du Pont barns and conspiring against
the du Pont firm.
Walter ii. Hayes asked the court to
remit the fine imposed on Peter A. Pagan,
one of the jurymen of the present panel,
| for absence when called, on the ground
that the iuryman had been summoned in
! Il referee trial and was not aware that he
| was disobeying the rules of the court. The
court RENTED the fine.
II. II. Ward made application for an
| order to sell goods seized under a writ of
| foreign attachment.
nounced that all the witnesses in the case
of the State VS.. Eugene du Pont Burns
were discharged from any further attend
| ance at this term of court. The case was
then continued until the September term,
and upon the renewal of the bail bond of
| the defendant, Burns, in the sum of So, 900,
| he was released.
Court took recess at 20 o'clock until
| go O'Clock p. m.
| AS soon AS the superior court convened
Monday afternoon the court announced
its refusal to grant the application of Mr..
| Higgins, counsel for the defendant in the
case of Hysore Il Son VS.. l. Tremble Quig-
ley. Mr.. Higgins then withdrew his plea
of not guilty and filed a demurrer, which
will be argued on Saturday next.
| William NJ. Byrne, one of the counsel
| for the defence IN the case of the Atlantic
Refining Company VS.. Phillips & Kane,
announced that the case would be tried at
this term of court. The other suits against
the same firm are those of II. J. Allen and
Son \ Company, 4: Weber & Company,
the Charles g. Phillips Company and the
James Bradford Company.
The case of Patrick Healey VS.. the Will
| mington City Railway Company was set
| for Thursday morning at 10 o'clock. Brad
| ford d Vandegrlft represent the plaintiff
and George II. Bates defence.
| During the afternoon Levi G. Bird, coun.
sci for the plaintiff in the suit of John Il.
Cook vs.. the Wilmington City Electric
Company, asked that the record in the
case be set straight while counsel were
present. He added that on May 10th the
court overruled Il motion for new trial
Of the case, and on May Goth, four days
after the courts ruling, the defence noted
an exception. Yet counsel claimed the
record of the court showed that the exeep-
| ton was noted as taken on the day the
court refused the motion for a new trial,
which was not the case. The court di-
rected that the exception be recorded the
| day it was noted which was May Goth.
| Court took recess at $40 o'clock until
10 o'clock Tuesday morning.