Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-03-01
SUPERIOR COURT.
A Verdict Finally Reached In the Morri-
sou Case.

Tho jury Thursday evening reached
verdict in the case Of Mrs. Catharine
Morrison vs.. Frederick w. Harrison and
rendered judgment for the plaintiff in
the sum of $0S6.s7. The jury had been
out since Wednesday.
There was brief session of superior
court on Friday morning. Judgment
was given the plaintiff with costs in the
case of Chandler vs.. Fuller; Lilburne
Chandler for the plaintiff and H. G.
Turner for the defence. The case of
j. II. Hyson VS.. the jackson & Sharp
Company was continued until the May
term. The suit of David Coverdale Va.
William Mayne was reported discon-
tinued.
The attention of the superior court was
occupied Saturday bv the u gument of
counsel in the case of William IL. Lee VS..
the Mayor and Council of Wilmington,
Peter l.. Cooper, Jr.. represents Lee, while
ex!City Solicitor Charles NJ. Curtis and
City Solicitor George A. Elliott appear for
he city. Lee, who was formerly secretary
of the Board of Health, and ex-registrar of
births, deaths and marriages, sues the
board over the citys shoulders for back
salary which he claims is due him. He is
sanguine of his ability to convince the
superior court judges that his claim is
just one.
The mechanics lien case of Thomas
]. Day VS.. the Jessup & Moore Paper
Company occupied the attention of the
superior court on Monday, and jury
and trio of lawyers wrestled with the
legal points involved in the litigation.
The suit is for the sum of $9l719,
with interest from August 10th, 1891.
According to the story of the plaintiff,
Day contracted to build an addition to
the establishment of the Jessup & Moore
| Company, the cash consideration to be
| $4,000. When the sheathing was par
TALLY on the roof heavy rain storm
came up, and as the mortar was green,
the rain drifted in on the walls and in
iured them SO that a portion of the
structure had to be rebuilt Besides
about one foot of water collected inside
and injured the foundation.
Day claims to have had conversa-
ton with Mr.. Luke in regard to the
matter, during which interview he
alleges that the latter told him to 60
ahead ana rebuild the walls, and he
would endeavor to induce the firm to
allow him for the extra work performed
in recons;ructing the damaged walls.
The firm paid Day the original bill of
| $4,000, but declined to allow him the
extra consideration of $S17. 10, but sub
sequently agreed TO compromise the
claim for $500. When they learned that
Day had consulted counsel, they with
drew their proposition to allow him
extra remuneration.
The plaintiff is represented by Hof-
fecker & Hoffecker while Willard Sauls-
bury, Jr., appears for the defendant
company. The plaintiff called Frank
Il. Carswell, Thomas J. Day and A. S,
Reed to the stand this morning, and
after George Thompson and William
Luke had told what they knew, rested.
Mr.. salisbury then asked for xon-
suit on the ground of failure on the
part of the plaintiff to prove contract.
Court reserved its decision and adj
journed until $50 o'clock p. m.
In the superior court, Monday after
noon, the motion of Willard Salisbury
for nonsuit in the case of Thomas j,
Day VS.. the Jessup s. Moore Paper
Company, on the ground of failure to
prove contract, was granted. This ends
the case. Day sued to recover the sum
of $s1719 for extra work in the cree
ton Of building.