Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1894-06-19
De COU VS.. POOLE AGAIN.
ANOTHER SUIT ON A PRoMlssoRY
NOTE.

Many Cases Continued at This Term Of
the United states Court The Shaw
umenthaI Co. Damage Suit Goes
over Until October.
The June term Of the United States
District Court was opened this morning,
with Judge Wales on the bench.
The suit Of William McMackin VS.. the
Baltimore and Philadelphia railroad was
discontinued on motion OF Hoifeeker &
Hoffecker.
Willard Salisbury laid grounds for
continuance Of the case OF Mark Shaw
vs. f. Blumenthal d Co, a damage suit
for which he is counsel Of the defendants
Julian S. Ullmen, OF the firm, testified
that Messrs. Adams, McDermott and
Hover, OF Brooklyn, and George A.
Maxwell, now In Florida, are important
witnesses for the defense who could not
be present at this term. The case was
continued until October H. H. Ward
and A Macallster represent the plaintiff
The suit Of Mary Ann Miller vs. the
Pusey and Jones Company was reported
TO be on the way Of settlement
The cases In equity Of Emeline B
Sellars VS.. the Parvis and Williams
Company, injunction bill; Emma X
Martin, et. al VS. Edward L. Martin,
bill Of complaint; Kartavert Manufactur.
ing Company vs.. Vulcanizsd Fibre Com
pAny. Injunction bill Delaware Hard III
bre Co. vs.. Karlavert Manufacturing Co. +,
Injunction bill Simeon l.. West VS.. VIII
mington Oh and Leather Company, re.
ceiver; Robert u. Maxwell vs. tho vii.
mington Dental Manufacturing Com
pany, receiver; Thomas H. Council VS.
James M. Douglas, receiver; Martha J
Stroud VS. William j. Cunningham
receiver; William Goldie, et al VS.
Diamond State Iron Co, injunction
York Manufacturing Co, VS., Caroline
II. Elcles, ct. al, Injunction and amount
Arthur r Leele, receiver, VS.. Nonesuch
Fibre Co, receiver, were con-
tinued. The appeals we're dismissed in
the cases Of the National Dredging Com
pany, vs. the tug Argus. and John s.
Rowland VS.. British steamship South
Cambria"
w S Hilles made an application to have
the return Of the United States marshal
in the case Of the York Manufacturing
Company, Of Pennsylvania, VS.. Dover Ar
tifcial Ice and Cold Storage Company
quashed. The court will give decision
in the matter during the present week.
The DeCou Suit IN Progress.
The suit Of De Cou Brothers Company
OF Philadelphia VS. Millard 4. Poole
Of this city. for 81, 500 on a promissory
note was then taken up Hofecker a
Hoffecker appeared for the plaintiffs anC
Colonel Benjamin Nields and J. Perez
Nields for the defense
The Jury empsnelled 20 try the CASE
was Lambert V. Nicholson. Harry Miller
Joseph b. Truxton, Charles II Maull
Virden Truitt, John o Truitt, Robert G
Justis, Amos Cole Heuiy H. McMullen
Gardiner W. Joseph, William H. Jones
Frank Downs All the other jurors sum
moned to attend this term OF the cour
we're dismissed from any further attend
ance as there are no other cases to b
tried
The action on which the case is tried
, for 81, 500 on a promissory note date
July 81. 1891, for twelve months. Jan
, Kline, OF PHILADELPHIA, owned a reta
| shoe store. which was purchased by MI
! Poole. He gave In part payment thi
note 10 was turned over TO De Co
Brothers Co., in payment of a debt owe
by Mrs. Kline. IL went to protest an
now the fun amount with interest, 4
all 81, 7S3 70, is asked from the jury.
The defense claims that Mr.. Poole wa
defrauded by Mrs. Kline in the sale.
repi esentative Of DeCou Brothers Con
pany asked Mr.. Poole IL it was bis sig
, nature on the note, before the forme
q had accepted it, and Mr. Poole said
8 was he warned the company not
{ accept It, as he had been defIauded an
q would not pay the smount.
!. Mlllard 7. Poole was the first witnes
h TO be called, and testified according
the basis Of the defense as laid down
the jury by Mr.. Nields.
The case was tried at the Septemb'
term Of last year. A verdict Of ov'
s.. 100 was rendered. DeCOu Brother
d were not satisfied with the verdict an
| eecurqd a naW trial