Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-12-06
IN a.prRloh couRE
Coroner Empa .tt r. stidhain Gives Bond
for Faithff Performance of Duty.

Peter L. Cooper, Jr., who has just re-
turned from E,ansas City on o business
trip, asked thht the cases of Mabel u.
Adair, Eawinn L. AdGir and John w.
Adair vs.. john j. Dougherty be con-
iinucd until the February term under
poremptory rule. William ). Eilles,
counsel for the Adair children, opposed
tho motion on tho ground that the inter
ests Of his clients demanded an immedi-
ate adjudication Of the matter. Court
sent the case over until February.
James w. Ponder informed the court
that the cases Of W. +. Williams and
George II. Kerr vs.. Horace Mcdaniel
had been reEsrred to John II. Rodney,
referee.
II. II. Ward announced that similar
disposition was made of the cases Of
Charles w. GOuert and Percy Darling
ton VS.. Horace Mcdaniel. William 5.
Hilles represe ats the latter.
The case of Mary A. Hart VS.. the
p, w. g. B. Railroad Go. was reported
settled.
In tho following cases special juries
were asked for: Amelia L. Finnegan
VS.. the Wilmington City Railway CO.;
Charles b. Smith VS.. the Baltimore IL
Philadelphia RAILROAD Co.; Ida v. Pyle
vs.. same; Jerome Conroy vs.. the Will
nington City Railway Co; Matthew Q.
Huber vs.. the Jackson s. Sharp Co.
Tho following cases were passed;
johnson g. Barnhill VS.. the Baltimore &
Philadelphia Railroad Co.; Benjamin l..
Kent vs.. the WILMINGTON City Railway
Co., William II. Weeks vs.. same; Kent
u Weeks VS.. same.
These cases wern continued: Michael
Haley VS.. the Baltimore 81 Philadelphia
Railroad Co., continued until December
10TH Charles Reidel vs.. p, w. &c d.
Railroad CO.; Elmer Reeves VS.. Will
mingtou City Railway o.; Joseph b.
Welch's administrator vs.. the Baltimore
81 Philadelphia Railroad Co., set down
for trial January i'd.
In the superior court, Monday morning.
Hugh q. Browne reported the case of
Finley & Foulk vs. 9. S. Hurlock & Bro,
rs settled. This disposed of the only case
set down for Monday.
Court announced that next month q new
| rule in regard to divorce cases would 20
into effect. 1t has been customary for
| lawyers TO ask the Court to remand the
| testimony back to the referee when counsel
had neglected to prove certain material
points. aud the Judges announced that
| after this term TINY would refuse to re-
mand the evidence back to the commits
sioner, stating that it was establishing q
dangerous precedent.
Court refused the application of L. G,
VANDERBILT for rule to show cause why
the sheriff sale Of the property of the
/ Walton a. Whann Company should not
be sci aside, the ground for the refusal be-
ing that the application was not made in
| accordance with the rule of the court
governing the same. The rule says that
such applications shall be made on the
| first Thursday of the term. The applica-
ton in this case was not made until Satur-
day, two days after the specified time.
Coroner.elect Emmett Il. Stidham came
into superior court Tuesday morning and
gave bonds for faithful performance OF
duty during his term of office. Frederick
Kienle went on his bond for $1,000.
The case of B, z. Leveridge & Son vs..
Armon u. Chaytor was relegated to the
foot of the list
l. The suit of the Security Trust & Safe
Deposit Co. VS., the City Building and Loan
Association was reported settled. Judg.
ment for the plaintiff to the tune OF
81, 1000. In the case of Henry Il. Pusey
VS.. Thomas X. Lally Judgment was re
ported for the defendant for costs.
General leave to amend was given in the
case of the Citizens National Bank o.
! MluuiPlDWu vs.. AlcAhHuSl L NbHAef,1S
administrator.
The case of the Home Insurance Co. VS.
James Byrne was continued OH application
of the defendant.
An inqnisition at the bar in the case o.
George Miller VS.. Hunora Lynch ct al.
rendered verdict for 5000 in favor of tn,
defendant.
The case of the Standard Sewing Machine
Co. VS.. George Il. Smith, was taken up ant
/ II. Il dam
II. ii. Ward appears for the plaintiff ant
Philip Q. Churchman for the defendant
The action is one to recover OH promis
sorry note the sum of S95 with interest.
The defendant is ex.postmaster OF Laure
and the lieutenant of Senator Higgins. TIL
maker of the note is Samuel !. Roop am
the name OF Smith appeared on the bacl
of the note as endorser. Ruop defaulte
In the payment of tine note when it cam
due and the plaintiff came on Smith as tn
endorser.
: After the plaintiff had put in its cas-
Mr.. Churchman moved for q non-suit o.
; the ground that the defendant had nc
been properly notified that the maker O
the note mad defanlted in payment thereof
and could not therefore be held respor
sible.
/, MIR. Ward contended that due notice ha
been given OF the default in the payment
and the defendant was therefore liable TO
the amount of the claim. Mr.. Ward cite
a number of authorities in support of hi
1 contention.
i The case OF John Il. Orchard VS.. Levi
p. Buck Is reported as settled the d.
fendant having apologized to the plaintiff
. for alleged slnnderouS statements, ate
which the action was withdrawn.
The case of John ~ Kelly vs.. George
Bullock is continued until the Fehruar
term, as is also the case in the suit of job
II. Anderson vs. George b. Ward.
4 The special jury case of Elmer Reeve VI
the Wilmington City Railway Co. has bee
: set down for trial on January Sd. II. l.
Ward represents the plaintiff and Willar
: Salisbury the defendant. December l0tl
!, Michael Haley vs.. the Is. X II. Railrou
: Gu, Bradford & yandegrift for the plaii
: tiff and Levi Z. Bird for the defendal
company; January Sd. Joseph B. Walsh.
! administrator vs.. the b. ~ L. Railroad q
i. The case of the Standard SEWN
i, Machine Go. vs.. George E. Smith, q!
r postmaster of Laurel, to recover tt
. sum of $t0l.S3, being the face Of
o promissofy note with interest, which h;
/. occupied the attention of the superb,
4 court, went 10 the jury under the chart
of the Chief Justice yesterday. TT
note on which the plaintiff seeks to r
l. cover was payable at the First Nationt
/ Bank of Seafcrd, 30 days after dat
,. The maker was Samuel !. Roop an
n George +. Smith was the endorser. l
II II. Ward represented the plaintiff an
! Philip @. Churchman the defence.
d The plaintiff claimed that the no
IS was presented on February 18th, 1870
the day Of maturity, at Seaford, by Il
Sussex National Bank, and that pa
ment was then refused and protested {
"A the same day. On the following dt