Delaware gazette and state journal., 1895-12-05
nAsn mAnpAalus oAsE.
Tho Great suit Revived In the Super
Court-Huls Rsturnnble on December

cause why tno peIltlOnerB HnOuiu NOT
be reinstated as members of the Re-
lance Fire Go. lit
Tho rule was granted and made re-
turnable on Saturday, December 7th,
Lewis G. Vandegrift counsel for the
defendant in the case of Joseph Ross
VS.. the Brandywine Granite Co., asked
for q rule for security for costs in the
case. 1t was ordered that security in
the sum of 5000 should be given by
December 9th. Tho case is set for
trial on December llth.
William Michael Byrne made a mo-
tion for rule to show cause why the
sheriff's sale Of property of tho Sussex
Land and Cattle Go, should not be set
aside. The rule was granted and made
returnable on December 7th.
Tho trial list for Monday was gone
over in superior court Monday morning.
and the case Of Milton d. MARTIN vs.
Charles Horn was called for trial.
The jury was called, and the first
four members were sworn three times,
owing to the use Of the wrong oath
twice. The Jury was simply one of in
QUESTION to fix the amount. A promi-
sory note for $50 with interest was in
volved, and the jury gave verdict for
the full amount aggregating 1881. 70.
Several other cases were called and
continued.
The case of William jerks Fell and
Densel was called In the superior
represented the PLAINTIFF and Benia-
min Nields appeared for the defend
ant A jury was drawn to try the
case.
According to the statement Of Mr..
Ward Densel entered into covenant
with Messrs. Fell and Crook of
Brandywine Springs 10 erect and
operate carouse at that place during
1891, from which Messrs, Crook and
Fell were to receive 20 per cent of the
profits. The plaintiffs contended that
the carousel was not finished until
after several excursions had visited
Brandywine Springs and it was not run
tho entire season. The action was to
recover for breach OF contract.
Charles H. Page and Richard w.
Crook were put on the stand, the latter
still testifying when court adjourned
until 3. 30 o'clock.
Hugh Browne. attorney for the de-
PENDANTS in the case Of Shanahan
Wrightson Go. VS.. W. /. Stoops a.
Thomas I. T. Clark, confessed judg-
ment for 1884, with interest from
March 10th, 1893 Willard Salisbury
was granted rule to sell the property
OF the defendant in the case of Clark
va. Slaughter, 1T having been attached
for rent. -Ul
In the case Of j. Frank Curry VS..
the Charles Warner Co., Benjamin
Nields counsel for the defendant, with
drew two pleas absque hoe and filed
two direct, pleas instead.
On motion OF j. Frank Ball, William
! I. Lyman was appointed commissioner
| TO take testimony in the divorce case
Of Springer VS.. Springer.
Josiah Marvel asked for writ to
show cause why mandamus should
not issue to compel the Reliance Fire
Go. to reinstate Joseph Cash and two
other ex-members who were expelled.
| The rule was made returnable Satur-
day. The costs in the first case have
been paid.
William s. Hilles reported that the
case of Rogers vs. Barlow d Weer had
been settled, and it was discontinued.
On motion of William S. Hilles the
case Of Davidson vs. Forests admins
traitor was discontinued for the present.
When the superior court reconvened
Tuesday afternoon the case of Richard
W. Crook and William jerks Fell vs..
! George A. Dansel, in which the plain
tiffs claim 81, 900 damages for an alleged
failure of the defendant to fulfil con-
tract, was resumed. Mr.. Crook, who
was testifying when court adjourned at
noon, again took the stand. He was
cross examined by Mr.. Nields, counsel
for the defendant, but no new facts
were cleaned
Mr.. Crook was followed by enjamin
| Nieds, who addressed the jury on be-
half of the defendant, He stated that
he would prove that, Notwithstanding
the removal of the carousal, the de-
fendant held receipts. given by Mr..
Crook, which released him. Receipts
and letters were offered in evidence.
August A.. Densel was the first wit
ness but on the stand by the defence
He stated that he was at the Springs
when the carousel was put up. He
stated that Mr.. Crook received the gross
receipts for two weeks after the carou-
sci was put in operation. From that
time until the middle of August the
money was sent to Dansel's uncle
After the middle of August he paid 20
per cent of the net receipts TO Mr..
Crook. During the time all of the
money was sent to the witness uncle
the latter, he stated, settled with Mr..
Crook. He stated that the machine
was run 28 times in 1891 and three
times in 1892
The witness was cross examined by
Mr.. Ward, but nothing new was de-
veloped,
George A. Densel, the owner OF the
carousel, was the next witness He
testified to Mr. Crook calling on him
after the machine had been removed
and telling him that the trouble was
all over. AT that time, the witness
stated, Crook gave his son a watch as
present He said that at that con
ference Mr.. Crook asked him il, in case
the railway would carry the passengers
from Wilmington the next year for five
cents, he would again erect carousal
there. He replied that he was ready
to do so in 24 hours. He took from
that statement that all old accounts
were settled. Mr.. Dansel was etil on
the stand when court adjourned until
o. 80 o clock Wednesday morning.
After some preliminary business this
morning the case was resumed. George
A.. Densel, tina defendant, who was on
tho stand when court adjourned last
night, was cross examined by Mr..
Ward, counsel for Mcssrs. Crook and
Foil. Nothing new was developed in
the eross-e s-examination.
The defendant was follow cd by
Augustus A. Densel. his nephew, who
managed the machine and looked after
operating it willis it was at the
Springs He produced an account
bouk, which showed the receipts for
tho first season, and aftoT reading from