Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-05-18


cover for material furnished the defendant
and used II tile erection of a dwelling in
MidlIntown The amount named III tho
hi Of particulars flied by Tie plaintiff is
SIs.1i rhis sum the plaintiff seeks to re.
cover.
The Meas in the case ara non assumpsit
an1 nrt M limitation
tiidnon h. Hukill, the plaintiff, was
called 10 the stand and read from tho origi.
nu1 putrlns thp .olps If materials made in
lie dcfrndant nj different times, aggrcgat-
ing in All STS7J
The original claim was Sl3D.52, the de.
fendant having made 4 payment which
reduces the amount 10 S7s'7i.
The plaintiff here rested
Mr.. DAVIS called Mrs. NVilhenina Black
way to the stand. Tile defence contemdcd
tbht the materials we're uot furnished On
Tia credit of The house bit upon the
strength of d note transferred tot hc plain
tin Of $3.50 as an advance payment for
lumber Furnished. Tbe defendant adj
inittcd owing tile plnintiif The sum of
1852. which was the difference between
the note of $3.50 anl the original bill Of
$lS9. 80
Court took n recess Mt 1850 o'clock until
. o'cloci, u, IN. ut which time the iury will
be charged.
Judge Cnllen charged tile iury In the
mechanics lien snit az GidInil E Hnkill
VS. Mrs. Wilbeminn Blarkaway in the
superior court Tuesday afternoon The
iury retired immediately nfter the delivery
az tile charge and nj 4 rs o,rlnrk retI1rned Il
verdict III favor OF the plaiptifT for SlO.Gi,
The original claim was S7S.74 and action
| WAS brought Ia recover for material fur
nished tile defendant ia be used in tho
erection Of a house, The case was tried nj
the last term Of court INIT owing tD A dis
agreement of The tury a decision ii the case
| WINS not reached.
When the repieyiu case of Mary Gibson
VS.. Mary Casperson was called Tie defend
ant failed TO appear. John II. Rodney
| renresented tho ninintitT Tho il-v viii
ont leaving the BOX, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff to the amount Of $50.
ttnntai' ti"rf;,,,t, IL II a",i,,,,'.
| admlnlstratqr. w =. llllles Tor the
ptaiItil anu Nliiath Michael BNfhe TOT
-. oHGE iiael4v ~ thc ailitln
,,tI "a l,,i,t. -
IN siHeriGr c5,,,rt yeSic,,i.,; rnns5,I,ir, a
| inrv vas drawn to nv the c,ise ~ InT,n
| IvcsIev pnii.rt 90 Cbartns Il Rorsnn mi
4 Anna II Ransnii 0w,,ars ~ raniStai
1 nn.f1crs ~ rn,,,,tnd nunnrs ma ;rI,n,t,,s :
| Uamnian c5ntrnrtor I;lhmrn cnanJIer
aupears for Tia plnintitf md FranI, b.
/ C,4rnnnfor - tbi Jarara,nty uL;s Il, =,
mprhh,iirs, iian nlsc H. rpc[,ver ma Mn, III
1 Sl5 yith thr,n rn.r.i in,arpst
| Mr. Ih.nIiar ,,,ha,, tbn r,.a ,,,,a c,Itod
stated INN il. ire;rei 10 hnrc Charles Ren,
SON. orr of tina drfendnnts IN thr ca.e
prrsent mn hn1 learned that he Md Icfi
/ Inc state. MIR Chandler nrrecd 10 % al
With the cns.. h1wpver
Cnnnsei fnr thn nIaintifr s+,tad tba+ spit
was broIi,ht ~ rctnvnr fnr c,r,n,,tnr ,ynri,
lierforme1 al 4 IweljinT eret,ei for H.
Rensai,s IN EostlaEa IL ifhan,S,s ! LIan,t,.
TON CONTRACTOR
The testimony If poIIocL taEan beFore
pennsylvnmin rn,nn,iSsint,er as Tho
,,I,intiff l. NM I;yi,,i, II po,,ns,.t,.,,,in
s.,s raaa - 'A'''''
The i,irv al 4, * ,,,c,ncl, ra,,larnl 4, ,,ar.
dict il fayor ~ tbe JafamG,,t = g -
80 = = - 800 = ~ 80. -s s.1
BEFORE THE CHINGELLOR.
--
movement tuesday m the Prelim-
mary injunction Case of the q. II.
Mccall Company vs.. the Wilmington
steamboat Company.
Before Chancellor WoIcott counsel in
the preliminary Injunction case If thg
George n Mccall J'Sninanv " the Wi.
mipgton Steamboat COMPANY we're en-.
gagged ali the morning endrnvoring 10 de.
wise some method nf ,nodIis vivendi rn,td.
mi, the hearing of tbn iIiinncfi,,, rcferrnl
to,
The arpunent Tuesday u, nrnin !, invoIved
the following, points. AwuitiIip Same ,eci
sion nv the rhanrnilor I'M Mccall c,,n.
pany complain they have no way Of m.
loading their sand. on thr other side
counsel for the steamboat comnnnv stHte
that If their onnonents wnrr .,iinyeI n
unload sand on tI,e ,,rnn,ises of Viz stn,n,
Boat cGn1nany neIt the Faurth at rae,
Wharfthpv wNilId he stirrendariiig ,,rn,,artv
i