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

yestment Association. Thomas Davis was
appointed commissioner TO take testimony
i'll the divorce case of Taylor VS.. Taylor. The
hearing of the case OF ], Frank Curry VS..
the Charles Warner Go. was set for next
Tuesday. Court adjourned until 1880
O'clock Thursday morning,
Friday mornings session of the SUI
perior court was consumed by the retrial
ofthe case of Thos. j. Day VS.. the Jessup
g. Moore Paper Co. The case was first
tried at the February term, 1894, when
the plaintiff was hOn-suited. Tho suit Is
on claim for $9I7.1D, with interest
from July Both, 1901. The plaintiff was
building an addition to the defendants
mills, when the foundation of the addi-
ton was washed away by u severe
storm. He contends that William Luke,
who, at the time was superintendent of
tho company, instructed him TO repair
the damage, assuring him that the com
pany would pay him. The company dc.
sired to compromise by allowing him
$500. The plaintiff was on the stand the
entire forenoon. Characterization IF
the witness began at 12,45 o'clock.
Hoffecker IL Hoffecker are counsel for
the plaintiff and Willard salisbury is
representing the defendant. All the sec.
ond panel jurors not engaged in this
case were discharged from further at
tendance. At l O'Clock court took re-
cess for an hour aud half.
In the superior court Friday after.
noon, Willard salisbury, counsel for the
for defendant in the case of Thomas j.
Day VS.. the Jessup & Moore Paper Co,
moved for non-snit, claiming that the
plainlin was bound to complete the build
ing and that there was no consideration
on which to base the suit. Argument on
the motion was postponed until Monday.
ThefollowIng special jury has been drawn
~ try the case OF j. Frank Curry vs.. the
Charles Warner Co., which will begin next
Tuesday: Michael Newell, John Guthrie,
w. r. Richardson, Webster Blakeley, Har-
ycy L. Gregg, Isaac G Elliott, J. Atwood
Weldin, Thomas l.. J, Baldwin, joseph
Derrckson, ]. w. Brown. James Crossan,
Richard Z. ,Appleby, Edward McAlIister,
4. Cam, Jr. Charles Walton, w. NJ.
Stuckert, Frederick q. Sutton, Thomas Il.
Hurn, j. Frank Ellison, j. Thomas Lato.
mus, George NJ. ID. Hart and James 4.
Taylor.
The following special jury has been
drawn TO try the case OF Susan nlghman
VS.. the Mayor and Council of Wilmington,
which begins June 18th: James A. Multi
gan, j. Frank Eiiason, John " Carrow,
Joseph Bigg5, Thomas +. Hurn. james
Webster, John Il. Wilson. Abram Palmer,
Joseph 7. Chandler, G. NJ. Groome,
Thomas t, Weldin, John Ball, l.. II.
Lyman, Reuben Sauerthwaito, George q.
Kerr. George VI. d. Hart, Alonzn s. Whit
took, James r. Taylor David w. Elkin-
ton, d. NJ. Mccoy, Richard T. Applcby,
James NJ. Downs and Charles Walton.
At Saturdays session of the superior
court the motion OF Hoffecker IL Hoffeeker
for a new trial of the case Of Charles Roy
nolds VS.. Wilmington City Electric Co.
was refused. In the case of John w.
1iurris, d. b. n. VS.. Charles Il. Barrett p. b.
T., Judgment was given for the plaintiff
below. The answers to rules to show
cause why the sherifl's sales of Lemon VS..
Quinn and Beadenkopf vs. Smeltz shall
not be set aside were postponed until next
Saturday. Court adjourned until 10 o clock
Monday morning.
Mondays session of the superior court
was brief. the non-suit in the case of
Thomas ], Day VS.. the Jcssup g. Moore
Paper Co, asked for by Willard salisbury,
was granted The plaintiff refused to take
the non-suit, but instead took verdict for
the defendant. The case will be carried to
the court of errors and appeals. Court
adjourned until Monday morning.
The superior court did not transact any
business Tuesday morning. All the jurors
were not present, and in consequence the
drawing of the jury to try the case of ].
Frank Curry vs. the Charles Warner Co.
was postponed until afternoon.
The trial of the case of John Franklin
Curry VS.. the Charles Warner Co., all
action for breach of contract, began in the
superior court Tuesday afternoon, with
Judge Ball and Walter IL. Hayes repre-
senting the plaintiff and Benjamin Nieds
and John 7. Nields appearing in behalf OF
the defendant. Before the special Jury
which is trying the case was drawn an
nouncement was made that George NJ. D.
Hart, the Juror whose absence prevented
the holding of court in the morning, is ill
In opening the case Mr.. Hayes said
1.-THE plaintiff, in 1890 conceived the idea
of doing away with the mixing of mortar
on the streets and invented process fol
manufacturing mortar by machinery. HI
needed capital to perfect his invention
and was introduced to E. Tatnall Warner
and Alfred ID. Warner, with whom ht
entered into an agreement. by which III
was to receive one-half of the profits. BY
subsequent agreement he was to receiv,
the following: One-tenth of all the ne
royalties received for or on account of thu
patented invention; in case of the sale o
the whole or any part of the patented in
vention, one.tenth Of the net proceeds q
any and all such sale or sales; one-tenth o
all the profits derived from the use or EN-
ployment of the patented invention; one
tenth of the net proceeds of the sale, as
signment or grant of the whole or an.
part or parts of the patented invention
After the latter agreement had been draw
the Charles Warner Co. established
mortar-making plant and made Mr.. Curr.
superintendent of it. The plaintiff. afte
beng employed there some time, demandet
statement and the defendant refused tt
furnish it,"
MIR. Hayes produced the latter agreemen
and claimed that the defendant bad brokel
it in the following respects First, by no
paying the plaintiff 500, one-tenth of
$1,000 royalty received second, by no
paying him $50, one.tenth of the amour
received from the Quaker City Mortar Go
for permission to use the process; third
by not paying him 50, 0O0, one-tenth of tn
$4,000 profits of the Messrs. Warner
plant; fourth. by not paying him 81, O0l
one-tenth of the proceeds of the sale OF tn
patented invention to the Warner Process
Mortar Co.
Mr.. Curry testified that he became supel
intendent of the Messrs. Warmers plan
in March. 1899, and continued in that pos
ton until the following September. Th
daily capacity of the plant was l25 ton:
The quantity of mortar made from Marcel
pounds, which was sold for S53, $50 A.
Water, sand and lime were used in mani
featuring the mortar. The quantity {
sand used was 23.32l 1928 pounds.
Judge Ball asked the witness to stat
what was the cost of the sand to the d
PENDANT. The latter's counsel objected
saying that the company, because it dea
largely in sand can get it much cheap
than il can be gotten in the regular wa
and commended that the cost of the san
therefore should not be considered
ascertaining the company's profits
mortar. Argument on the admissible
of the question was being heard when Il