Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-06-07

Herman Chielinsky VS.. the Hoopes Il
townsend Company-An Attempt to
rroVe Negligence on tho Part of the
Plaintiff.
The attention of the oyer and termner
&,ourt was occupied Thursday morning
" argument on the part Of counsel for
continuance of the case of Michael
M1aino, the Italian indicted for murder
ng Carlo Ruva, fellow.countryman.
William Michael Byrne and William
Il. llilles represent the prisoner, while
Attorney- General Nicholson and Deputy
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Blanch ii. Giles APP
pear for the prosecution.
II Mr.. Byrne reminded the court of the
3act that motion for continuance had
1een made on May 10th, and that an
ldavit had been filed setting forth the
3act that the defence could not safely go
10 trial without three material witnesses,
Whose names are Antiono Aulare, Pas
uale Scarpullo and Thomas Santillo.
MIR. Byrne stated that the defendant
how filed a second affidavit, setting forth
additional reasons why the case should
&e continued.
d He said that the efforts to secure the
attendance of the witnesses at this term
yyere fruitless and that the above wit
tlesses could not be found. 1t was un.
Verstood the witnesses were at work
somewhere in Pennsylvania repairing
lhe damage done by the storm, but in
Ehat locality it was not ascertained.
On May 9th, the affidavit stated,
khe defence came into knowledge
III certain facts, going to prove that
n a.. InranUHI n
Fugitive from justice and had been
convicted in Massachusetts OF as
kaIlt with intent to commit murder
Nhe affidavit further stated that the said
HGrlo RuVa was armed with loaded
kegolver on the night OF the alleged
khnrder.
Additional reasons for continuance
were the allegations in the affidavit to
he effect that Fano had been injured
Ey fall in Italy and it would be neces-
Nary TO produce medical experts to pass
boon his mental condition. From this it
reasonable to suppose that the ground
lon which counsel for the prisoner
Jpe TO base their defence is insanity.
Mr.. Byrne stated that he had examined
ne records of the oyer and terminer
Hourt of this county for the past 10
Fears and had learned that no reasonable
Hnotion for continuance in q murder
base had ever been refused. He said il
kvas well-settled practice of the courts
HI this county to invaribly grant an
adjournment when the facts in the case
3yarranted u continuance. lie cited the
tases of Walter w. Blackburn, for the
Vnurder of Eddie Gardiner; Howard
H'ooling, for murder of his wife,
Ind the cases of the State against
Iieorge ii. Williams, Henry Reidcl
Ind Graham, all Of which were con
linued from time to time, lie said that
In the Reidel case Mr.. Ward was
kllowed time to bring witnesses from
liermany to testify for the defence. lie
bald there was no instance where q
reasonable motion for continuance in
capital case had been refused.
MIR. Nicholson, in opposing the mo
ion for continuance, said the case wa:
postponed from May 10th te May 31st tt
five the defence time to procure wit
esses and if they could not be secured
n that time it was reasonable TO assume
they could not be produced at all. lie sale
ihe rules for continuance in such case
were uniform in England and America
The motion for continuance must be ac
pmpanied by proof citing the relevancl
III the desired testimony; that due dill
9ence had been exercised TO obtain sait
Witnesses and the latter will be on hant
Al the time indicated. ...
Mr.. Hilles followed in powerful
Efgument for continuance and finishel
III 1850 o'clock.
TRIAL FOR MONDAY, JUNE 11TH.
After consultation Chief Justice Lor
announced that the majority of tn
cpurt were opposed to Il continuanc
and that the case must be tried on Mon
DIV week. June 1lth. The oyer an
fsrminer jury was discharged until tina
bne.
Mr. Hilles said he desired to have
Understood that the defendant did nc
Nant to waive any right.
"You don't waive any right, Nj
Hilles," said the Chief Justice.
Mr.. Ililles noted an exception to tn
burt's ruling, and in cases of this chai
ebter, where the right of tine defcndar
appeal is not waived, the defendaI
lbs an opportunity of carrying his cas-
the Supreme Court of the Unite
tates.
SUPERIOR COURT MATTERS.
In the superior court jury WI
8awn To try the damage suit Of HERNIA
hielinslIy VS.. the Hopes & rownsen
b. Levi G. Bird and Andrew Il. Sar
bbrn represent the plaintiff and Willial
Spruance and Charles NJ. Curtis Il
&fence.
Suit is brought by his next frien
Aaximillian Chielinsky.
Mr.. Bird, in opening for the plainti
id this is u case tc recover 10000 /,
#e loss of an arm at the defendant
prks, December 18th, 1892. Chielinsk
'ooy of 13 years, was an employe
w defendant company, and lost his le
hpnd and arm by getting caught
machinery. The plaintiff claims th
w defendant was negligent, inasmut
the boy had not been instructed
his duty. .s..
Mr.. Bird offered in evidence an act
Incorporation,
Adelia Chielinsky, mother of the bo
"a he had been in the world 10 yea
M ne time of the accident.
II ie injured lad then took the stan
arm is entirely gone. He W
red in neat suit and his appearan
ade good impression. He has
lleiiigent face. He speaks Engli
aehtly, and would easily be taken
AMERICAN youth, although of Germ
Alractlon. He said he was employ
scfeWing nuts on bolts. and was ?
Il work by Frederick Schiller, T
ttef ordered him to do as Helms
Mson, colorcd, told him to do.
mr. Bird asked if the witness knt
nen he entered the shop whether
o' there was any danger attached
" -lnE or heltinup