Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-05-25

How II Was Established in tho Case of
Hollis vs.. the Academy of Music.
The paintiff in the repeyin suit Of
George II. Hollis vs.. Eugene b. H. sutton
and Jules Rcybold, Mr., sutton as propre.
tor Of the Academy Of music, had mar
row escape from being non-suited on the
ground Of failing TO prove venue, in the
superior court, Thursday afternoon. In
August. 1891, MIR. Hollis, leased to James
II. Shoemaker of the Academy of Music
40 yards Of carpet and IS yards Of lining
on which several payments were made
There remained balance of $50 when
Shoemaker and the Academy of Music br
came disconnected. Sutton and keybull
refused TO surrender the goods. Sheriff
Simmons went 10 reneyin the goods DE
Gambler 2ith, l5al, just US the curtain in
thetheatre was going up on the first act
The owners of the theatre gave security
for the goods and the show proceeded.
When the case was called, Thursday
afternoon. Philip Q. Churchman appeared
for the plaintiff and eN-Mayor Austin llar-
rington and Judge j. Frank Ball for the
defence.
George II. Hollis aud Clarence Hollis
testified TO the agreement made between
the former and Eugene D. K. sutton, and
that the agreement WAS that the goods
were to be returned to the former unless
full payment was secured. The plaintiff
here rested.
Mr.. Harrington then arose and asked for
q nnn'suit on the ground that the de-
PENDANT had failed to prove vcnue. For the
moment the impression prevailed that the
defence had scored "kmock.0ut" and it
did loUl; MS though the plaintiff had failed
to establish this fact.
Mr.. ChurChinan was equal to the emerg-
eucy, however, and claimed he had proved
venue by the testimony oil Clarence Hollis
The defence insisted that venue had not
been proven. The stenographer's notes
were appealed to and it was apparently
shown that the Academy Of Music had not
been properly located BIZ the testimony.
Finally the simple word here saved the
day, il being proven by the stcnogruphers
notes that in reply to Mr. Churchman's
question as to whether tho Academy of
Music was in this city, Clarence Hollis had
said the theatre was at Tenth and 'Iatnall
streets here" Mr. uhurchman thought he
had received an answer from the witness
Ia the effect that the Academy of Music
Was lin this city" One of the juryncn
was Of the same opinion. The court de-
Cidcd that the word here" was sufficient
to prove the venue, and Mr.. Churchnan
escaped a nun-suit.
The defence then called Recorder of
Deeds james I. Shallcross, who was sworn
by Prothonutary liorty The object in
N'tAAlliF 49, A''lhlNlAhfH Nho ~ llONt lllG
sherilr's sale Of the Academy of Music
property to Jules lteybold and Eugene D.
Il. Sutton. The court ruled out the adj
mission Of these records on the ground of
irrelcvancy.
Jules Eeybold then took the stand He
testified that the Academy of Music had q
'black eye when Hollis came to replcvin
the goods. and he offered to save the repu-
tation Of the theatre by paying portion
of Mr. Hollis claim.
Mr.. Churchman stated that Clarence
Hollis was not in position to receive any
money and therefore could not have taken
any money in part payment from Mr..
Rcybold.
The argument Of counsel was brief.
Chief Justice Lore charged the jury. lie
said the case was a conditional rental of
goods and not conditional sale and that
the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
The jury was out 10 minutes when a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff FOR 3d.
was returned.