Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-06-01

An Interesting Case Decided by Referees
in squire smiths Court FIX Constable
Pritchett Claims 5000 for Legal Services
and Secures n Verdict of $i25.
A ciyilsuit involving some very novel
and interesting features was tried before
Justice Of the Peace Frank +. Smith
Yesterday week, in which exCon
stable William w. Pritcnett was the
plaintiff and Thomas +. Grissom the
defendant. The trial was decided by
referees in the magistrates office, the
referees being Joseph l.. Carpenter, ST.,
| William M. Pyle and Samuel Murphey.
Suit was instituted by Mr.. Pritchctt for
services rendered the defendant
| The circumstances connected with the
case and the interesting points of law
| involved, as told by witnesses, are;
Joseph L. Haywood formerly conducted
| the saloon and restaurant al No.
West Fourth street, which was seized
by the sheriff under judgments for debt
held by Megary & Son and the Hart
mann e. F'ehrenbach Brewing Company.
Consequently, at the November term,
1892, Haywood went into the superior
court and Withdrew his application for
license Before this action had been
taken, however, Haywood confessed to
Albert j. WEIGH, his partner in the
business, Judgment for $4,000. Hay
woods property had been levied upon
underth executions of the Hartmann d
Fehrenbach Brewing Company and
Mcgary judgments, under which the
sheriff seized the property of Haywood.
When Welch came to look after his
claims against Haywood he discovered
that he had been left out in the cold.
He sought legal advice, but eventually
secured ex-Constable Pritchett TO look
after his interests
Mr.. Pritchett discovered that Hay
woods lease on the saloon did not eX-
pire until March, 1896, but ascertained
that Notwithstanding this TACT the owner
had leased the saloon to the hartmann
, & Fehrenbach Brewing Company fol-
the term specified in IIaywood's lease
Haywood had vacated the premises
This was in December, 1892. hlr. Prit-
chett then instructed WEIGH to put some
one in possession of the saloon. The
sheriff had already made a levy under
the two judgments mentioned, but the
saloon was vacated. When the sheriff
( made the levy on the property, he at
tached the good will and fixtures Of the
!, saloon, but failed to attach the uneX
Z pired lease, or the right, title and inter
i est in the property held by Joseph j.
/ Haywood up to March, 1895. Mi. Prit
e chctt and Attorney II. IL. Ward wcr,
. quick to appreciate this fact
: They Immediately advised WEIGH 7
y issue execution on the Judgment whici
! Haywood had voluntarily confessed L
+ him and attach the lease which e&plret
/ iii March, 1896. WEIGH was also tolt
/, to get possession of the property a
once. He followed this advice and in
stalled his brother-in law, Thoma
IS (irissom in the saloon. He then ha
C the sheriff make levy on the lease ain
t advertised it for sale. The good will an'
!: fixtures were sold at sheritf's sale abou
i the first of the year, under the judg
i ments of the Hartmann u Fehrenbacl
V Brewing Company and Megary y Sol
Is and at the same time and place was sol
e the lease, which WEIGH had made lev
IL upon. 1t was bid in in the name C
n Thomas Grissom. The other creditor
y then realized the move Welch's adviser
y had made. Grissom was allowed
v continue the saloon business, and II
t. obtained, through Prtchett and h
lie counsel, fractional license, until
yearly license was granted at the Eel
ruary term. After conducting the $;
loon for some time Grissom sold tt
~ good will and fixtures to j. Haiailto
Ayars. This was in April last, and u
n price paid is said to have been $500
~ The property then passed into nc
he hands and the fight over lease and tiS
es lures was ended.
/. Pritchett subsequently put in his hi
n ne for services, and the amount was $40
m He was informed by Grissom that Il
lie latter did not owe him anything and
nd might get the money the best way
he could. In order to get Judgment again
ed Grissom, Pritchett sued him before Ju
en- tice Smith, and the suit came off yeste
y day week The triafiasted several houl
and the witnesses were lawyers Pet
B. L. Cooper, IL. ii. Ward, George
he Brown and others. The referees, aft
in some deliberation, rendered judgme
nd in favor of Pritchett for Sl25.