Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-06-13

NDne III MISTAKE ny u CltTN.
A. S, Reed testified that In manufac-
turing mortar he usually mixed five
bushels of lime to 1850 pounds Of sand,
The market price nf sand In this city
from March Goth, 1909, TO February 3D.,
1894, he stated, was So per load for
beach sand and $3.50 per load for bar
sand. The market price OF lime was
30a33 cents per bushel. On cross
examination he said he bought sand
right along during the period stated and
he used large quantity OF sand in
erecting the new postotilce.
A. l.. johnson confirmed Mr.. Reed
respecting the market price Of sand
during the period in question. lie testi.
fed that the market price Of hair was
25a30 cents per bushel and the market
price Of lime was 2Sa30 cents per bnshel
and part Of the time possibly }3 cents.
Charles Spencer, colored, testified
concerning the mixture of mortar.
John W. Betulle testified that in mix
ing mortar the defendant used about
half and half OF beach and bar sand.
Charles q. Bye gave the average daily
sales of mortar from March Goth, 1892,
to February 3D., 1894.
During a lull in the testimony Levi Q.
Bird asked that the case of Gillen VS..
the Mayor and Council Of Wilmington,
to be tried by special Jury Thursday, be
coutiaued until the next term OF court,
which request was granted.
Mr.. Bird announced that the plaintiff
had not paid the costs in the first case OF
| Haley We. the Is. & p Railroad Co.
and said that he will not appear In the
| secoud case until said costs are paid, to
which the Court agreed.
The present term Of tho superior
court will doubtless close this week.
| The case now on will clear the docket.
Tuesday afternoon's session was con-
| sumed by evidence for the defence in
the case Of ]. Franklin Curry vs., the
Charles Warner Co,
William I. Strawbridge, member of
the Philadelphia bar and solicitor for
the Warner Process Mortar Co., testified
that he went to New York during the
year 1882 for the purpose of selling the
mortar patent, but the persons With
whom he was to negotiate did not APP
pear He sold bis shares Of Warner Pro-
cess Mortar Go. stock TO u. I. Warner
for 81. On cross examination he stated
that he did not pay anything for the
stock he received; 1t was given tn him
for duties which he had performed and
for work he was to perform.
Charles G, Bye was recalled and cross.
examined respecting the average daily
sales of mortar from March 29th, 1899,
to February Sd, 1894,
Ralph Peberly testified that he owned
1000 shares of Warner Process Mortar
Co. stock, which were issued tU him In
| NJ fAr oh Ia Il; -
thing. He was secretary, treasurer,a direc-
tor and D member of the executive com
mittee of the Quaker City Mortar Co.
On cross.examlnation he stated that the
stock was issued to him for work he
might do.
| William II. Alberson of Philadelphia
testified that he held 200 shares Of the
stock but he did not pay anything for it,
George I. Whitaker, stakeholder
of the Quaker City Mortar Co., testified
that no and Mr.. Curry had frequently
Travelled on the same train and Mr.
Curry had often spoken of the benefit
he would derive from the success of the
Warner Process Mortar Co.
John N. Carswell testified that he
made hasty examination of the com
pany's books in 1885, that its system o.
bookkeeping was admirable, and tina
he fou..d the books eXeellently kept
On cross-examinatiol he stated that b.
did not make IL complete examination.
, The case of J. Franklin Curry VS.. th,
] Charles Warner Co. consumed yestsrda,
mornings session OF the superior court
E. Il. Warner was called to rebut til
testimony OF the plaintiff. He deniet
that the Quaker City Mortar Co. ha,
obtained more than one license an
declared that Mr.. Curry had not signet
any license.
! lie stated that he and Messrs. Straw
2 bridge and Curry went to New Yori
3 July 18th, 1893, for the purpose of sell
: ing the patent rights for Brooklyn. NeS
: York and Jersey City to Mr.. Murthl
but that gentleman failed to appear
I He denied, that they had received on th,
4 occasion of that visit an offer OF 8 ! 500,
l 900 for the patent rights for tho Unitet
States.
He was questioned respecting th,
/, market price of sand, lime and hal
: from March 29th, 1893, to February 3D.
/, 1894, and in regard TO the quantities o
those materials used in the manufacture
: of mortar. He said the extreme daily
!; capacity of the mortar factory i
100000 pounds aud asserted that h
4 never knew OF that quantity having
been manufactured In one day. Tn,
factory did not run to full capacity
during the period in question.
He stated that mortar cannot be KEEP
in store more than a week without beinl
7 retempered, The sand sold to the NOR
! tar plant from March 10th, 1899, to Feb
! ruary Sd, 1894, was disposed of fo
] 1880 less than it would have brough
II it had been sold at the market price
e Prior to August, 1893, he did not hav
any idea that Mr.. Curry expected an in
7 terest in the profits. After 1898 tn
books were changed so that the morta
: profits were entered in the mortar &C
!. count.
y On cross-examination the witness sal
that DIR. Curry had agreed March Goth
: 1899, to certain parties being given
!. half interest in the business. Mr.! Curr
g was entitled to one-tenth of the stoc
y whenever he asked for it. He, himself
obtained his stock July Goth, 1899, bu
!. Mr.. Curry did not receive his stock unit
l. October Gath, 1903, He did not know
G July Goth, 1899, that Mr.. Curry wa
e entitled to one-tenth of the stock, II
!. did not see the contract from the day b
u signed it until August, 1898, and he d
not know until then that MIR. Curry wa
d entitled to one.tenth Of tho profits O
s the Warner Process Mortar Co,
I. The defence rested at 12.40 o'eloc
!. and announcement was made that th
o plaintiff, maybe, will not call any vii
If nesses in reply.
l. Counsel on both sides consented t
e each juror being given pencil and pape