Delaware gazette and state journal., 1895-12-12

OlNll Engineer CdfHWeil was cAlleU
by counsel for the plaintiff, but Mr..
Bird objected and he did not testify,
Several witnesses took the stand for
the plaintiff, each saying that they did
not see the freight train pass before
the western express appeared.
1t was IL o'clock when counsel on
both sides announced that their owl
dence was all in. One hour was allotted
to each for argument. Counsel then
read their prayers and cited legal
authorities in similar cases.
When counsel had finished reading
authorities adjournment was taken to
2.30 p. m
| When court opened afternoon Mr..
Churchman addressed the jury for the
plaintiff. He reviewed the evidence
and presented his eide of the case to
the jurors
Mr.. Sanborn, of counsel for the de-
fendant company, presented his side of
the case. He was followed by Mr..
4 Bird, his colleague, who made strong
appeal for the defence.
Mr.. Hilles made stirring address
for the plairti
After Mr.. Hilles had finished Chief
Justice Lore discharged the jury until
10 O'Clock this morning. with instruc-
tions concerning its visit to the rail
| road crossing to-day.
According to instructions the jury
men, reported Tuesday morning and, ac-
companied by Bailiff Fleming, went in
an omnibus to the crossing.
A jury was drawn to try the case
of George Maull vs.. Francis Dugan
and John L. Maull, trading as Dugan
q Maull, corn-cob pipe manufacturers
Of Odessa, Artemus Smith for the
plaintiff and Martin B. Burris for the
defendant.
The action is for wages amounting
to 1922. George Maull, the plaintiff
was the first Witness He said he hired
with the firm to work for SS per week
while he was employed in the factory,
and for other work, which he did
while outside the factory, he was to re-
celve SIS per month. He stated that
from January 30th, 1893, to June, 1884,
he received no pay at all. The witness
was on the stand when court adjourned
until 10 O'Clock Tuesday morning.
When court opened Tuesday morning
George Maui, the plaintiff in the case
of George Maull VS.. Francis Dugan and
John L. Maull, again took the stand.
He was cross examined by Mr.. Burris.
BY referring to an account book the
witness told the days he worked and
received no pay.
John t. Maul was the next witness.
He acknowledged hiring George Maull
and stated that he was to receive So
per week for running the engine and
turning pipes. He corrohorated the
first witness relative to the time he
worked and also the statement that he
l L uk,.. . all
the same testimony as George Maull,
turned over his property to George
Maull.
Ernest Manchester of this city, who
was employed at the factory with the
plaintiff, was called He told how the
factory was operated and stated that
| John L. Maui paid the hands.
The plaintiff rested, and Mr.. Burris
stated his side to the jury. He said
the agreement was that George Maull's
wages were to be paid to John L.
Maull also, that the plaintiff did not
make the time he alleged
John Workman was the first witness
called for the defence.
He did some work for Mr.. Dugan,
one of the defendants, but he was un-
able to throw much light on the case.
The next witness was Francis Dugan,
| who said he put the money into the
concern. He became very emphatic
and quite dramatic. He said the only
contract was that John j. Maui was
| to receive his brothers. pay and to
board him and that the firm was to be
relieved of all responsibility for George
| Maul's wages after they had been paid
to John L. Maull. The cross exami-
nation revealed nothing new.
Charles III. Workman was also called
to prove the contract, after which
counsel addressed the jury
The jury was charged by Judge
Cullen, after which it retired. 1t was
still out when court ajourned for the
noon recess
The next case called was that of
William G. Carrick, Thomas G. Carricll
and David A. Carrick, Jr., trading as
David Carrick g. Co.. vs.. Alvan Il.
Morrison, 9. L. Ward for the plaintiff
and p. L. Cooper, Jr., for the defend
ant. The suit is an action on a con-
tract of suretyship, the amount claimed
being $3.50. Al According to the allie
cations of the plaintiff, Alvan R. Nor
rison became surety for Samuel b.
Bender, who was employed by David
Il
tribute crackers and other goods from
team throughout New Castle county.
1t was further alleged that Carrick &
Co. carried out their portion of the
contract, but Bender failed to live up
to his. The transaction occurred in
1993-94. After Mr.. Ward had stated the
case to the jury adjournment was made
to 2. 80 p. m.
In the suit of the Penn Mutual Life
Insurance Co. VS.. E. I. Walton and
Francis N. Buck, in which the plaintiff
attached stock in the jackson Il Sharp
Co. owned by the defendants on mo.
tion of William G. Spruance, counsel
for tho plaintiff, the attachment was
vacated and the stock discharged there
from.
Levi c. Bird, counsel for the de-
fendant in the suit of Mary O'Neill's
administrator vs. the b. & P. Railroad
Co., stated that the case has been set
tied.
REAL MEANING OF THE SUIT.
AS matter Of fact the Martin suit
is merely feeler. Suit has been enter
ed by the family of Edward Lytle, the
young man who was killed at the time
of the accident, for heavy damages.
Mr.. Hilles has been retained and it is
understood Mr.. Churchman is associ-
ated with him. The idea in bringing
the Martin suit, in which the actual
damages are only about $500. is to get |
legal decisions on certain points, which
will determine in a measure the method |
of procedure in the Lytle suit.
additional court nelus on nth pagsl
Letters Parliamentary.