Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-03-07

ny Whittridge. owing to the fact that he
was ont OF employment and had INSULT
cient fuel 10 keep the house warm. He
said his family was compelled to subsist
on bread ami water part of the time. He
hnally got position.
The witness was turned over for cross
examination at 4,45 O'Clock. the direct ex.
animation having consumed nearly the
whole OF the day. Mr.. Bradford cross
examined Butterworth. He said the rela-
IONS between him and Conrow were cor
uial up to March LIST, when he left, and he
had no 'ill-will' toward Conrow now He
denied that in statement to ConTow he
had charged Conrow with supplies that
had not been paid for.
The witness became somewhat confused
under Mr.. Bradford's rigid cross fire, but
his evidence in the main was not shaken.
Court adjourned until 10 o'clock Wed
nesday morning.
Edith NJ. Butterworth. wife of George
,. butterworth. who is suing Joseph B. Con-
row for $50 QUO for defamation OF character,
first took the stand when the libel case
was called in superior court yesterday
she testified TO an interview she had with
Conrow at Silyerside after her husband
had moved TO Maryland. He was angry
and excited when he learned that Butter
worth had gone. This was either the lat
ter part of February or the first of March,
1891. 1t was on Tuesday, but the witness
did not recOllect the day of the month.
The cross'examination did not develop
any material new evidence.
Joseph Guest was called to prove that he
had gone TO Conrow's farm al the instance
of Conrow after some pigs Mr.. Mcclure
had purchased from Butterworth.
Charles Mcclure Identified q letter to
Butterworth which was handed him by
MIR. Chandler. The letter was about some
pigs which Buuerworth had sold him.
The defence did not object to the letter
going in evidence. The plaintiff here
rested.
Mr.. Byrne, in opening to the jury, said
the defence proposed to prove that no
offence had been committed and that no
malice had been shown on the part Of the
plaintiff.
Joseph B. Conrow, the defendant took
the stand. He was examined BY Mr.. Brad
ford. He said his residence was at Wool
ton Hall until June 10th, 1903. He said
he employed Butterworth in March, 1891.
lie said that during the time Butterworth
was employed by him, he was compelled
to be away from home part of the time,
having large interests in the East and
| North. Once he was absent looking after
his ice interests on Lake Champlain. This
contradicted the evidence of Butterworth,
who said he was not accustomed to stay
away from the farm for any great length
of time. He said he had cautioned Butter.
worth not to buy supplies for the farm on
credit.
Mr.. Bradford read letter from Conrow
to ButterwOrth bearing date OF January
9th, 1898 in which he tells him to look
around for a purchaser for the stock, but
restricts the sale Of the same until Butter
worth consults Conrow. Then Mr.. Brad
ford read q number OF letters from Butter
worth to Conrow and vice versa.
The tenure OF the letters showed that
the best of feeling existed between Conrow
and Butterworth and that Conrow placed
explicit confidence in the former and if he
| disposed of Woolton Hall said he would
do all in his power TO secure Butterworth
another position.
In one of the letters Conrow implies
that Butterworth has sold honey aud
potatoes without accounting for them, aud
that he had given him money to be applied
TO the purchase of supplies which went
astray. Butterworth replies to the letter.
saying that he can account satisfactorily
| for his transactions and encloses a state
ment prepared by himself and Mrs. Butter.
! worth. Conrow in reply says that Mrs.
Butterworth's account is correct, but her
husbands is not.
On the same day Conrow wrote letter
| to William ii. Whittridge, the Baltimore
millionaire asking him whether or not he
was the gentleman who employed Butter,
worth on his Recommendation. and OH re-
ceiving reply in the affirmative, ConroW
wrote to Whittridge recalling the recon-
mendation, saying that he had learned
that "Butterwurth is not only untruthfu
but dishonest" Then followed a letter
from Whittridge to Conrow, thanking him
for the information and to send on the
data, as he would have to give some excuse
for discharging Butterworth. In reply tc
this COnrow gives Whittridge permission
to show his letter to ButterWorth a:
grounds for his discharge.
Whittridge, whose office is in Baltimore
wrote to Butterworth, whom be had en-
ployed to manage his farm. telling Butter
worth that he had decided TO discharge hin
on Conrow charges. Hesaid he did not hay,
sufficient time to investigate the charge
and after the receipt of Conrow's letter j
would be unpleasant for both if Butter
worth renamed i'll his employ.
Mr.. Bradford read letter from Lilburi
Chandler to Conrow in which tine latte
said Butterworth had employed him a
counsel and be demanded that Conrow re
call his damaging letter to Whittridge an
apologize to Butterworth, or stand suit TO
libel. To this letter Conrow replied tina
he would recall the letter and apologize
Butterworth satisfactorily explained tn
discrepancies in the accounts.
Conrow WAS recalled to the stand. II
swore that he went down TO the Hanson
Robinson farm early in March, 1891 an
found Mrs. Butterworth and the children
there. Tho witness wanted to know wher
Dutterworth was, and his wife said he ha
gone to Baltimore. Conrow replied that b
did not notify him of his departure. Mr.:
Butterworth said her husband had sen
him word. but Butterworth replied tha
he did not receive it. In regard TO the sell
ing of straw of the farm the witness sal
Butterworth only accounted for five ton
of straw when Judging from the size c
the stack there must have been eight c
nine tons.
The witness said the letter of recon
mendation he gave to Whittridge, attestn
to ButterwOrth's character, was the stronl
est he ever wrote, ana he recalled ii bt
cause he was afraid that il Butterwort
proved dishonest in Whittridges emplo
he would be liable for damage.
He was cross-examined by Mr.. Chandle
who got from him the fact that Buttel
worth usually made his statements regu
larly about the 18th of the month and III
, statements were accepted by the defenC
ant.
During the cross.examination Como,
swore that he had gone TO the firms fror
whom Butterworth had been purchasin
feed and learned that the firms statement
OF the rates and Butterworth's account
did not correspond.
Conrow was on the stand when cou
took a recess until 2.30 o'clock.
Quick Comparison Work.
The whole of the comparison Of Ne