Delaware gazette and state journal., 1895-12-19

Mr.. Cameron's business, reducing it |
from go 10 70 per cent. The amount of |
damages alleged is $4,000.
Druggist Cameron, the plaintiff, |
gave evidence. agreeing with the state
ments made to the jury by Mr.. Cooper.
He said the prescription was properly |
compounded. About three days after
it had been put up he took the medl-
cine to N. B. Danforth's store, where
it was tested in his presence. He had
the original prescription compounded
at DanfGrth's, and it was precisely the
same as the one which had been put
up at his store. The prescription was
offered in evidence.
The case was not finished when court
took recess.
On motion of H. H. Ward argument
in the case of Reynolds vs. Cochran,
postponed until December 21st.
The iurymen not enipanelled in the
Cameron Corkran case were discharged
until Monday morning.
When court resumed its session on
Friday afternoon, these witnesses
heard - all for the plaintiff = were
Druggist Cameron, Clerk Donaldson
of Danforth's store, Mrs. Kelleher, for
whom the prescription was compound
ed, and Mrs. Ford, sister of Mrs. Kel-
leher.
Mr.. Cameron testified to the value of
his business. He stated that before
tho alleged trouble his monthly sales
averaged S23j, that for two or three
months afterward they fell off to about
$3.50, and that previous TO the time of
the transaction the business had shown
steady growth.
Clerk Donaldson testified that the
two prescriptions were slightly diff
ferent.
The two women testified to having
the first prescription filled at the store
of Mr.. Cameron and to hearing certain
conversations.
AT 4.50o'clock court adjourned until
10 o'clock Saturday morning and the
| slander case was continued until 10
o'clock Monday morning.
In the court Saturday morning the
opposed liquor license applications were
taken up.
The application of William Whitcraft
of ChrIstiana went over to next Satur
day, owing TO the non-appearance of
three women, who had been summoned
aa witnesses by the opposition. At
tachments were issued for the witnesses.
Walter II. Hayes appeared Tor James
I. Richardson of Marshallton. The
application was opposed on the ground
| that the hotel was not necessity. two
other hotels being operated within two
miles w. S. Prickett stated that he
thought new place was not needed.
He presented "a remonstrance signed
by rs men and 80 women living in the
school district. Twenty eight were
freeholders and 76 were voters. An
other remonstrancc, signed by 58 per-
Sons. living in the vicinity, was also
presented. A letter opposing the place
was also read from Robert @. Justis.
In order to show that the place was
not needed Mr.. Prickett called the fol-
lowing witnesses David Bowen. Will
liam A. ,Mullin, Frederick Bringhurst,
George II. Smith, Thomas Whiteley
and Edward Cranston.
Mr.. Hayes presented two petitions, one
signed by "a voters and the other by 63
persons who frequently pass through
the town. The following witnesses
thought the place was a necessity; ..
F. Duncan, w. II. Greenwalt, Fl. f.
Kean, E. S. Barton, John q. McCul-
Tough anu James Russell.
Decision was reserved.
In the superior court argument for
| the distribution of the proceeds of the
sheriff's sale of Rene J. Fougeray's
effects at Union Park. The claimants
and amounts asked for were as follows:
~. @. Aiken, $40: Joseph H. Gould,
S42. so; j. Wesley Carey, S23; Edward
| Marvine. $50. 25; George Leach, S2l.
| Walter II. Hayes, William NJ. Byrne,
W. s. Hilles and f. r. Cochran, Jr.,
represented the claimants, who were
employees at the park.
| Daniel Farra. representing the Davis
heirs of the park property, presented a
| claim for rent. representing the year
from March 25th, 1885, to March 25th,
1896.
All of the claims, except that for
rent, were allowed. As the Fl. ia. was
issued in 1893 and the rent claim was
not made until 1895, the latter would
/ not stand, because the only year the
landlord has precedence is the year in
which the levy is made.
A claim of Franklin Mawine for $50
for work was also allowed.
Tho case of Cash, Duncan and Pagan
against the Reliance Fire Co. was
called. The alternative writ was issued
and made returnable at the February
/ term OF court.
1
| ment for the defendant in the damage
case of DeVallinger VS.. the Republican
| Printing Co.
The elander suit of Druggist Cam eron
| VS.. DIR. Corkran was resumed in court
Monday morning. H. H. Ward, coun-
/ sci for the defence, moved for non
suit
Argument on the motion was con-
| tinued until the noon recess.
Josiah Marvel, counsel for Charles NJ.
Holmes of the Robinson Opera Co.,
which performed at Union Park last
| summer, filed claim for $50 against
Rene j. Fougeray, the late lessee of
the park. The real amount owed, it
is alleged is $500, but $40 is all that
can be claimed under the act relating
| to wages.
The disposition of the proceeds of the
sale of the park have brought out
new question. After the sale the money
was all paid into court by the sheriff,
notwithstanding that he and the pro-
thonotary held bill of S6l for costs.
| The claims allowed Saturday were paid
on Monday, leaving balance of only
S74, and If Mr.. Holmes claim is allowed
ahead of the costs, there will not be
enough money left to pay the costs.
The court will determine which has the
precedence, the wage claim or the
4 costs.
Philip Q. Churchman of counsel for
| the plaintiff in the suit Of William q.
| Martin vs. the h a. p. Railroad Co.,
whero the jury disagreed, gave formal
notice of a retrial at the February term.
John Biggs and Peter Il. Cooper,
counsel for the plaintiff in the damage
| ct,;t oF Cylyar1a va tha p w A. n