Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-12-14


plaintiff, but the defence proposed TO
prove that the statements of Mr..
Mitchell were controverted and most
emphatically contradictcd by the mem
bers OF the Board of Street and Sewer
Directors. He said that the contract
was made by the plaintiff and he was
fully advised az to the character Of the
work. Mr.. Vandegrlft said that tho
contract was not only according to the
contract but was positive disadvantage.
NJ" Vandegrift was interrupted in his
remarks az l1,50 o'clock when court
took q recess until the afternoon, in
order to confer with the Chancellor In
regard to matters pending before tue
court Of errors and appeals.
Joseph L. Carpenter, Jr,, was first
called to the stand for the city when the
case of Frank A. Mitchell vs.. the Mayor
and Council of Wilmington, was called
in the afternoon. He stated that his
services as president of the Board Of
Street and Sewer Directors terminated
in April last. The witness said that
Mitchell took the initiative in securing
the contract. Mr.. Mitchell afterwards
informed the Board of Street and Sewer
Directors of his inability to fulfil the
contract at II cents per yard. The
directors were willing to help Mr..
Mitchell out, and signified their anxiety
TO have the work done properly and
according TO the specifications. The
object was to have the bricks laid and
"pitched" in such manner as to make
the bricks impervious to water.
The witness, together with other mem
bers of the board, complained to Mr.
Mitchell of his failure to properly per-
form his work. The bricks did not
settle regularly and the open cracks per-
mitted foreign matter TO collect in the
crevices and in the cracks. The work
was defective from sanitary stand
point and was disadvantage, owing to
the inequalities OF the laying of tho
bricks.
In reply to the question OF Mr.. Hills,
the witness said he did not think the
plaintiff was entitled 10 recover any,
thing, in view Of the fact that the work
was not done according TO contract and
was defective.
Mr.. Carpenter said he did not think
the bricks were laid properly by the
plaintiff. The work was stopped after
one square had been paved. The in
equality of the laying of the bricks, he
said, was apparent.
Samuel Chambers next took the
stand. Prothonotary Horty was not in
the court room and the Chief Justice
administered the oath to Mr.. Chambers
who was then examined by Mr.. Vande-
grift.
After stating that he was a member Of
the Board of Street and Sewer Directors,
tho witness went on TO explain the con-
ditions of the contract when Mr.. Hllles
objected and was sustained by the court.
Mr. Vandegrift then pursued new line
of examination and the witness said he
saw the work done by the plaintiff and
it was unsatisfactory. He thought the
work on Adams street was fairly well
done, while ON Eleventh street the work
was defective. The witness called the
plaintiffs attention to the work several
times.
Mr., Chambers explained the different
effects of "mopping" the street and
pouring" the pitch into the crevices.
On cross examination Mr.. Chambers
said he thought the city owed Mr..
Mitchell Something" for the work he
had done; especially for the work on
Adams street.
j. Newlin Gawthrop, president of the
Board of Street and Sewer Directors,
testified that he had made frequent com
plant to Mr.. Mitchell, contending that
the work was not being done according
TO contract. Tho witness was asked in
regard to the sanitary condition of the
paving, but Mr.. Hilles objected to the
question.
The court ruled that4he testimony was
not admissible.
The witness said on further examina-
ton that the work on Eleventh street
was disadvantage to the city.
The witness said that the plaintiff
got "somc" tar in between the bricks
and was entitled to pay for what tar he
did get III.
The city here rested. Mr.. Hilles
called the plaintiff in rebuttal and this
closed the testimony.
what do you do with the case gem
tIemenp"
~ believe there is no dispute about
the law" replied Mr.. VANDERBILT
Mr. Ponder then began arguing to the
jury on behalf Of the plaintiff. He re-
viewed the evidence produced by Mr..
Mitchell and drew comparisons between
the testimony of the plaintiff and that
produced by the city, and showed
wherein the defence was weak and de-
fective. Mr.. Ponder made a good i'm
preston on the jury and his argument
was a comprehensive presentment of
the facts involved in the case. This was
his maiden speech
He wac followed by Mr.. Elliott for
The city who finished his argument at
i.30 O'Clock.
Mr.. Vandegrift spoke to the jury on
behalf Of tho defence, and then MIR.
tllles finished for the plaintiff.
The case OF Frank A. Mitchell VS.. the
Mayor and Councilof Wilmington went
10 the jury Immediately after court
on Tuesday Judge Cullen
said there was no dispute about the
aw in the case, and he would not
charge the jury. The jury retired at
1910 o'clock, and at l0.45 o'clock re-
.urned with verdict for the plaintiff |
or the full amount of his claim, $032.44. |
William S. Hilles and james Ponder |
the plaintiff.
1t is stated that the jury reached the |
tbove verdict ON the first ballot, and |
we're almost unanimously in favor OF |
he plaintiff from the first. One juror
vas disposed to favor the defence at
he outset, but subsequently changed |
lis mind and voted with the majority
IN the first ballot.
John Briggs made the announcement
hat the case of Vincent o. Hill VS..
sidney r. Harris, appeal case, had been
landed TO referees for settlement.
Thomas Davis represents the plaintiff
md Mr.. Biggs the defendant.
Court took recess until $50 o'clock.