Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-01-12

vs.. Jacob II. Topkiss. Alexander y. Cooper
asked for a rule to show cause why the
judgments should not be vacated and exc
cllion thereon quashcd.
Mr.. Bird, counsel for The plaintiffs in
the several suits Of John H. Muffin, Ct al,
james II. Joseph, Maggie NJ. Tones, and
Karl A. Paun vs.. the Philadelphia, Will
mington " Baltimore Railroad Company,
announced that these eases had been
settled out OF court. The suit Of George
Cook VS.. the Baltimore 4. Philadelphia
railroad WIS also announced IS settled.
Court announced that on Thursday the
liquor licenses would be taken up.
Court will adjourn Friday night, owing
to the fact that the court OF errors and APP
peals meets at Dover on January 18TH
The Sussex county court at Georgetown
vail also occupy the attention nt the court.
The Judges Will return to Wilmington
January 3Oth, at which time 4 number Of
important damage cases will be tried.
Court adjourned until 30 p. nj.
There was no business when court con-
vened Tuesday afternoon and as u result
court was adjourned until Wednesday
morning at ~ o'clock. Scycra! argument
cases will be disposed of preparatory to TAX
ing up the license cases on Thursday.
In superior court yesterday morning q
jury was empaneled to try the case Of
QuiglGy Il Mullen VS.. John j. Giutler. suit
volved was 1926, together With the in
terest amounting 10 S236.70. The joint
| makers of tile note were Wood n Giuder,
while Kennedy endorsed the paper.
W. s. Quigley, of the firm Of tluigley &
| Mullen, was called to the stand. Harry
| EmmOns appeared for the plaintiff and
| handed the witness the note, which was
| identified. Mr.. Emmons then offered the
paper in evidence.
Walter ii. Hayes, who appeared for the
| defendant, was ON his feet in an instant
and objected to the note going in evidence
OH the ground that only one party was
| sued instead of the joint makers. He
contended that the note was joint obi
| CATION and that all parties should be sued
instead Of Kennedy.
Mr.. Emmons held that it was because
the name Of John J. Kennedy was on the
back Of the note Quigey Il Mullen gave
| credit TO Wood Il Gindcr, the joint makers
| The note was made on November 18th,
1891 and was delivered to Qtiigley & Muller
| by Wood & Gnder.
Tho court ruled that Kennedy was sim.
ply an endorser Of the note and not :
maker. The note was allowed to go ii
| evidence. The plaintiff here rested.
Mr.. Hayes then moved for non-suit
| claiming that there was no proof of pro
test; no proof Of any demand made upol
theparties for it, The court denied the MO
toni or ii nOn-suit .
John !. Kennedy. the defendant, wa
called and testified under what condition
he put his name on the note. MI
Emmons asked the question AS tn whethc
Quigley & Mullen were present on TIL
occasion. The reply was in the negative
Mr. Emn0ns then objected TO the test
mony touching this point The couE
sustained the objection.
John Wood testified that he requisite
Mr.. Kennedy to endorse the note.
Peter A. Ginder was recalled and test
fed that he conveyed the note to Quigle
& Mullen. The latter endorsed 1t an
Kennedy subsequently did likewise. Til
witness stated that Kennedy only CT
dorsed it with the understanding tina
Quigley & Mullen should do so first.
w. $. Quigley was recalled and testilie
that the Endorsement Of Quigley & Mule
followed that of Kennedy on the note.
Counsel then agreed to submit the cas-
without argument. The jury retired ;
1914 o'clock and in five minutes retnrne
a verdict in favor OF the plaintiff for Ii
] full amount.
Court then adjourned for the noon hou