Evening journal., 1895-05-20
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
Jury Drawn in Charles Rey-
nolds Case Against VIC. E. c.
SMALL AMOUNT, MUCH TESTIMONY

MIR. Bird Announces the Settlement of
the Damage Suits Of James Dutton's
Administrator and Patrick Lyman VS..
theP w. & b. Railroad Company-LAw
sers Unwilling to Change Days Set for
Trials.
The spectators seats In the court.
room were nearly all vacant when the
Superior Court met this morning.
The case Of George Marshall vs. the
Mutual Life Insurance Company, Of New
York, was the 6rst called to the attention
OF the court. John 81 Rodney
and Josiah Marvel, counsel for
the plaintiff, asked that they
have access TO certain books and papers
pertinent to the case. To this Victor
Woolley, counsel for the defendant,
objected on the ground that Marshall
vas employed by T. Howard Lewis as an
agent for hlm and not ss the agent Of
the company. The court granted the
application and the case was ordered for
trial to-day.
The special jury list was then gone
over. Some of the cases we're announced
as settled and an effort was made by the
court to try the other cases a week
earlier than the calendar. None of ths
lawyers were willing to give up the days
already set and the effort was abandoned.
Lsvi c. Bird snnounoed settlement OF
the damage suits of James Dutton's
administrator vs the p, w. A B. Railroad
Company Patrick Lyman VS.. the p, w.
& B. Railroad Company. and John
Hanley, VS. the Diamond State Iron Com.
papy.
In the case Of j. Frank Curry VS.. the
Charles Warner Company Judge Bal
made motion that all books and papers
containing patent mixed mortar machine
Leases to manufacture in different parts
OF the country be thrown open TO tbs
plaintiff Argument on the motion
was postponed.
A Jury was drawn TO try the Appea
care Of Charles Reynolds, d. b, VS.
the Wilmington City Electric Company
Peter L. Coopsr, Jr., represented
Reynolds, and Leonard E. Wales, Jr. o.
the firm of Hofecker and Hoffscker
appeared for the defendant corporation
The case was for q small amount
although there was much testimony
especially for the company. Reynold
bought out Francis r Maguire's saloon
No. 7 East Fourth street. Th
company alleged that he used il
current and had repairs made to tn
amount OF $73 30 This he refused :
pay and the company sued him before
ma gistrate and got judgment for $l7 3
debt and So 46 costs Reynolds sppeale
TO the Superior C3urt and the case cams
up this morning
The company called Francis r Ma
guire, George A. Rumsey, WilliaE
Tatnall, John H Butz and others TO th
stand to prove the contract and use {
the current.
II When the company had rested II
case Mr.. Cooper said that tn
defense was that there had beei
no contract between Reynolds an
the company as too what price was I
be paid for the current.
Reynolds had paid $65 80, which b
considered more than 1t was worth, an
that Reynolds had said T. thI
the bills were too high and he would nc
pay them. the company must make
contract with him. This it failed to d
and finally he ordered the company to tai
the light out. 1t did not do so, and Il
amount in litigation represents Il
charges from the time he ordered u
! company to discontinue the service to Il
! | time it actually did so.
Charles Reynolds and Edward
Holland, whose testimony was 10 lin
with Mr.. Coopsr's statement, were Il
only two witnesses called for Ithe plain
iff above
Both sides closed at o'clock an
pending argument, court took reces S.
3 Announcement was made Of d
I settlement of the damage suit OF Add
A | T. Hastings's administrator vs. the T
3 w. & B Railroad Company.