Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-03-14
A BATTLE OF LEGAL GIANTS.
Great Array of Counsel in the Mar
tin Huber Damage Case.

WORKING Tor the JACKSON " snarp tost
and Now Seeks TO Recoyer Damages
Laid at s2O,OOO-The Great Array of
Counsel Engaged.
The testimony in the libel case of George
s. Butterworth VS.. Joseph u. Conrow was
concluded in superior court Wednesday
afternoon. The defence called Richard
Mcclure, who swore to book account
containing a list Of supplies furnished by
the witness to Butterworth, in payment Of
which Conrow gave Mcclure his personal
check.
Thomas Markland was called to testify
as to the proportions OF q straw stack, me
contention lof the defendant being that
Butterworth had disposed OF part of the
straw and applied the receipts Tor The sale
of the same to his own use. Horace Groves,
another witness, said he was unableto give
an estimate of the tonnage OF straw re
naming in the stack,
Mr.. Chandler recalled Mrs. Buttcrworth
to the stand who swore that when her hus-
band went to Baltimore he delivered over
to her the keys of Woolton Hall which
she surrendered to Joseph Guest. This
testimony was rebutted by tine evidence of
ono witness who said Butterworth had
gone off without notifying Courow or
leaving any one in charge OF the property.
This closed the testimony i'll the case.
There was session Of court Wednesday
evening to hear argument by counsel ON
the points Of law III the case.
Thursday morning Mr. Chandler began
addressing the Jury and was followed by
William Michael Byrne for the defence.
The tenure of Mr.. Byrnes argument was
that in order to substantate Il charge Of
libel or defamation of character, the bur
den of proof is with the plaintiff to SHOW
malice. He argued that no malSolence,
no malice and no ill-will had been proved.
Mr.. Chandler finished his summing up
at l o'clock. Court took a recess until
$50 o'clock, at which time the Chief
Justice will charge the jury.
The jury in the case of Butterwortil
against Conrow for SO 900 damages. libel
case, came into the court room shortly
after O'Clock Friday and reported that
| they were still unable to agree. They had
/ been out since Thursday noon. Chiet
! Justice Lore asked whether the disagree.
/ nlent WAS due to misunderstanding OF
/ the law in the case or whether 1t was
! owing to- a misinterpretatio! ut the
facts. George w. Gray, the foreman, i'll,
formed the Court that the difference OF
| opinion was over classification" there
being doubt in the minds of some OF the
jurymen as to whether Conrow was iusti-
fled in writing the letter to William ii
Whittridge, which caused Butterwor:h'
discharge.
The Chief Justice then defined thu
elements OF Justification and the jury re
tired for 10 minutes, at the expiration o
which time they reported that they wer'
us far from an agreement as ever. The!
stood six in favor of giving damages ant
six for the plaintiff.
The Chief Justice then discharged tn
jury, who received their checks from Pro
thonotary ltorty and departed.
The case will be retired as soon rs suit
able arrangements can be made by counsel
A big legal battle for $4,000 damage
was begun in the superior court Thursda.
afternoon tand the indications point to
hotly contested civil fight which ma.
prove highly interesting before the litiga
ton is over. The plaintiff is Martin {
Huber and the defendant the jackson.
Sharp Co. Suit is brought by Huber TO
the logs of.the use of both hands, which h
saws were mangled and mutilated i'll tn
defendants S machinery and he asks for
verdict commensurate with the amount o
personal loss and injury sustained
The counsel in the case comprise four o
the most prominent lawyers or the WI
nln.tOn bar, and an ex-Inited State
senator and tie present United State
Senator are found opposing each other
, This has tendency to intensity the inter
. est in the case, 50 that the proceedings vii
be watched with an eagerness unusual Il
the history of regular court practice.
, The plaintiff is ably represented by Lev
; G. Bird and Senator Gray, who will max
every effort to exact heavy damages fo
{ the injury to their client, While arraye
against them are ex-senator Anthon
, Higgins and cx-Samoan COMMISSIONS
George III. Bates, who can he expected :
| resist every effort on the part OF their n
J yerssries to mulct them in an action IL
damages.
: Considerable time was consumed in til
examination of the uarrs when the cas-
i was first called up both sides havn
! asked for and received general leave
} the narrs had been satisfactorily arranged
/, Prothonotary Peter \. lIorty called th
names Of the special jurors. Messrs, Bate
Q and Higgins challenged George NJ. y. Hal
and Joseph Morris. Mr.. Bird challenge
Richard Clayton.
> The Jury which will try the case VI
then sworn as follows: benjamin Dayi
Edward McAllister, Robert l.. TruaX, Wi
A liam Cooch, Thomas y. Murphy, Willial
j. Whitemun Thomas ID. LYMAN, Jam
Gurman, John AiGC'lcsliey, Robert Mothe
ALL John Lockernan and Calvin V
Crossan.
Allen Smith, who WIS among the list
specal Jurors was excused from serving c
!" the statement of Mr.. Bates. who infurmt
S the Court that he was Il stuckhoder in u
/, Jackson ~ Sharp Co, who would Erobab
!. be called as witness, Mr.. Bird did u
n object to Mr.. Smilh's withdrawal. lie sa
i the plaintiff would soon find out wheth
y or not Mr.. Smith was connectcd with Il
! defendant company.
u Andrew u. Sanborn opened the case Il
+ the plaintiff. He told the jury that the
were two counts in the pluintitfs narr, Il
4 first of which alleged negligence on Il
:. part of the defendant in not providing
n safe place for its workmen, and the secoi
- allegation being that the company h;
failed to provide reasonably safe N
u chincry for its employees. He said Il
u only plea entered by the defendant "
l. the plea of not guilty Mr.. SanbDrn th
v went ON to say that Huber was c;trpent
:. bv trade, having come here from Penns,
,s wanna, and that he knew little or nuthi
:. about machinery until he went to wo
= for the company. lie explained to t
=, Jury the manner in which the plalnt
I; was injured, and said that they expect
I, to provo gross carcleSsneSs as the result
Is the operation of the machinery which I
prived Huber of the use OF the hands.
the plaintiff proved the allegations us
forth in the narr. they would ask 10
verdict sufficient to reccmpense the piai
ie tiff for his loss.
Mr.. Bird offered in evidence the act
Of INCORPORATION of the Jackson 81 Sharp Z
ty which the defendants admitted. Ill
ID Martin O. Huber, the plaintiff, TOOK
OF stand. lie is about So years old and $,
Y. his occupation was that OF Il house C
N' penter. He had followed this Callins IN
" lie was employed by the defendant co
ty pany. Only the little finger and the thuI
remain on either hand, the middle linS
III having been cut off by the machinery
ne the defendants. He said William j. Hun
p the general superintendent, employed h
at in the defendants shops, and he was
to work on the "sticker" side of liniv
sal wood working machine. Tic was OF
ating this machine at the time Of the &C
ne dent. The first accident brIel HIM Jr
lie 25th, 1887. " was caused by his loot 81