Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-03-07
The VALUE OF A GOOD NAME
To be Determined by a Jury
In Superior Court.
GEORGE S. BUTTERWOTH'S' CASE
Why He Asks $4,000 Dam
ages of Joseph B. Conrow.
An IutereetinG Trial Now Under Way
Before u Special jury In the superior
Court of This oounty-rhe Story That
the Plaintiff Tells on the stand.

The adjourned term of the superior
court convened at 10 o'clock Monday.
Chief Justice Lore and Associate Judge
Cullen were on the bench. Judge
Marvel was prevented from attendance
owing to illness which has confined him
to his apartments at the Clayton House
for the past 10 days.
a jury was drawn to try the case of
George 5. Butterworth VS.. James b.
Conrow. Lilburn Chandler for the
plaintiff and Bradford u Byrne for the
defence.
MIR. Bradford stated to the Court that
the plaintiff was at one time employed
by Conrow as a farm overseer He dis
Charged him and furnished him with
ktter Of recommendation which secured
Tor him position with q man living
near Baltimore. Conruw afterwards
wrote to Butterworth's new employer
and ON the strength of the letter Butter
worth was discharge. He now brings
suit for damages.
Owing TO the absence Of material wit.
nesses the case was postponed until IL
o'clock Tuesday morning.
Ehe jury was discharged until that
time.
Court took recess until $50 o'clock
Monday afternoon.
The superior court and the court of
general sessions were both opened at 10
o'clock Tuesday. Judge Marvil was
still too i'll to appear on the bench and ii is
probable that he will be unable to attend
court for several days. He is under the
care Of physician.
In the general sessions court Branch H..
Giles appeared for the prosecution in the
desertiln case of Forrest ID. Mount and
asked for an order of the Court compelling
Mount to pay his wife SIG per month
maintenance. Court made the order. 7. Q.
ChuTchnan represents the defendant who
Is a locomotive engineer. lie furnished
security.
1t was lilo o'clock when Clerk Biggs
called the names of the Jury i'll the libel
case of George s. Butterworth VS.. J. b.
Conrow. Lilburn Chandler for the plain
tiff and Bradford, Vandegrift and Byrne
for the defendant.
The plaintiff was formerly in the employ
Of Conrow when the latter had charge Of
Woolton Hail on the Philadelphia pike.
After the property was sold to William
du Pont ButterwOrth left Conrow's en-
ploy. On recommendation of Conrow,
Bntterworth secured employment from
William II. Whittridge, the Baltimore
millionaire, who has handsome villa on
the suburbs of the Monumental City.
A shorttime after Butterworth left Con-
rows employ the latter thought he dis
covered that Butterworth was dishonest.
He therefore wrote to Mr.. Whirtridge and
thereby secured Butterworths discharge.
Mr.. Whittridge showed the letter to Butter.
worth us justification for the plaintiff 8
discharge. Hence the suit. Butterworth
says his character has been damaged by
Conrow's letter and places his damages at
10000.
Mr.. Chandler, in his opening said that
Butterworth was employed by Conrow in
March. 1891. to superintend the work
about the Hanson Robinson farm Wool
ton Halll, and was to receive as compen'
sation for his services $40 per month.
Conrow moved to Philadelphia prior to
March, 1893 On January OH of that year
Conrow wrote to Butterworth, saying he
was going to sell tho Robinson farm and
asked the plaintiff to dispose of the pigs,
horses and cows but to reserve the best
horses.
Butterworth sold the stock according to
instructions. Conrow told Butterworth
he would dispense with his services after
March 18th. Butterworth saw the adver-
tisement in Philadelphia paper that
William II. Whittridge wanted a farmer
He saw the latter and on recommendation
of Conrow, got the position. Butterwortl
went to Baltimore in March. 1898. HI
was discharged by Whittridge on receipt
of Conrows letter.
George s. Butterworth took the stand
and testified to the facts set forth by Mr.
Chandler, He was still testifying whei
Court took recess to 2.30 p. IN.
The value of a good name Is the question
that Jury will be called npon to decide il
the superior court. George ). Butterworth
farm manager, Is suing Joseph j, Con
row for $4,000 damages, action having
been brought TO recover for loss of char
acter sustained by reason of a lette
ala L,rf - D.,kHa Ia
ployer, in which Conrow accused hi
former employee of dishonesty. Butter
worth was discharged on account of tn
letter.
The examination of Butterworth wa
resumed when court convened, at
O'Clock. Mr., Chandler brought out tn
fact that Butterworth was compelled t.
when there was no money at hand to pa.
the bills, and thereby established a line o
credit, although the claims were after
wards satisfied when Conrow gave Butter
worth the money to pay the bills.
The witness identified letter he had re
ceived from Conrow under date of Januar
9th, 1893. He was about to offer it in evi
dence when the Court said 1t would saw
time if the counsel for the plaintiff offere
all the correspondence in evidence at tn
same time. Mr.. Bradford said this wa
agreeable to the defendant. The. letter
handed either to the plaintiff or defendant
who identified the epistles provided tn
handwriting was found to be their own
The letters alternated between Buttel
worth, the plaintiff, and Conrow, the de
PENDANT.
In a letter bearing date of January 9th
Conrow to Butterworth, the defendan
tells the plaintiff to sell two bay horses
some COWS and hogs, and instruct Mrs
Butterworth to dispose of the chickens
Butterworth is also directed to look abou
for another position, as Conrow says
/, expects to sell the farm. In the letter tn
defendant tells Butterworth he will Civ
him letter of recommendation Q
reference for another position.
The witness thekasent on to testify tht
he left Conrow's employ in March, lS9
and in pursuance to a letter received fror
William H. Whittridge, he went to manap
the latter's farm near Baltimore. The wi
ness was TO get $50 month for mnnagin
The farm; $40 per month for board of tw
men, together with his coal and vegetable
Mr.. Chandler asked the witness what b
family consisted of and he said wife an
B five children. Mr.. Bradford objected |
tile question but il had already gone IL
The Court held that it made no diiferenc
how many there were in the family. as u
plaintiff could only recover for any 10!
that might have befallen himself by rel
son of the defendants letter which cause
his discharge. MIR. Bradford said the d
fence admitted that Butterworth was di
charged on the strength of Conrow's lette
The witness then gave detailed stat
ment of articles he had sold when he W:
manager of the farm, toIalling S69.7
There was charged against this expens
for articles purchased to be used about u
farm and for making repairs. He swo