Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-01-23
rHn WRIc nr ntu4aH cAsr.

ternoop.
DR.. William c. Pierce testified that
Wright had complained TO him of a
prior injury to his back, In DIR. Pierce s
opinion Ericcson's disease could be
more readily caused from an injury to
the back than from an injury to the arm
Dr. Jakes said he had treated Wright
in May, 1893, for ain injury TO his back
Dr. Il. @. Shortidge, who attended
Wright, said he found him over-sensi.
tive about his arm. Upon cross exami-
nation he said that the force of the
blow had much to do with causing
Ericcson's disease.
Lewis B. Morrow, who had ridden
over the bridge frequently, said he had
noticed a jolting when the car passed
from the draw to the solid ground
William p. llendrckson said he had
noticed the draw OF the bridge drop
when he drove ON it,
Henry Shippers, an eXpressman, now
Of Philadelphia, testified that he had
luoved for Wright In February, 1895.
Wright helped move. They loaded a
stove weighing, he supposed, about 400
pounds, boxes, bedsteads and barrels,
ApNli h Whkuls f9UuN WIS upon llb
ground and they had to lift the goods
five or six feet. They unloaded the
goods and took them to the second floor
Of storcheuse. 4 few days later
Wright sent for him to move again, and
again Wright helped.
Mr., Wright wanted to lick you one
day, didn't he?" asked Mr.. Salisbury
The witness said he did, when he re-
minded Wright that he owed him for
tho moving
After the conclusion Of the examina.
tion of Shippers court adjourned until
10 o'clocl1 Thursday morning.
Tho case came TO an end when the
court reconvened in non-suit which
knocked out the plaintiff, John W.
Wright and gave the victory TO the do
fendant, tho Wilmington City Railway
Go. The first witness Of the day was
Joseph Salters, who assisted Express
man Shippers in moving OF Wright's
furniture in February, 1895,
Mr.. Salisbury announced that he
would vary little the course he had
for putting in the testimony. He,
therefore, introduced in testimony a
release, said 10 have been signed by
Wright, releasing the Wilmington City
Railway Go. from the payment Of all
claims for any previous injury or from
the injury received in tho accident
on Eleventh street bridge. This was
the star play mado by the defence, and
it brought results. az the Court said
that 1t practically disposed Of the case.
Harvey b. VANDERBILT, who is en-
ployed by the railway company, said
Wright signed the paper in his pre-,
sence. Tho release was dated October
10th, 1894
The Court required Of Mr.. Cooper. of
counsel for the plaintiff, what he had
to say, and ruled out all testimony that
he said he could offer. Mr.. Cooper
applied for leave to amend the replica
tion, which denied the existence Of the
release. The Court refused the appli-
cation, as it had come too late Accord
ing to Mr.. Cooper, the plaintiff denied
having signed the paper which had
been brought in; that no signed a
paper, but this was not the paper ex-
pected to be produced.
The Court instructed the jury to
bring in verdict for tho defendant.
When the plaintiffs name was called,
his attorneys did not reply, preferring
to take a judgment Of non-suit. No
verdict. therefore, was returned. BY
taking non-suit tho plaintiff may be
able, after paying the costs in this case,
10 bring suit at another time against
tho company.
Adjournment was made until 80
O'Clock Thursday afternoon.
The Wilmington City Railway Co.
came out ahead in the suit brought
against it by John W. Wright, but
court Thursday afternoon refused to
grant Mr.. Sausbury's motion to tax
the costs OF the special Jury upon the
plaintiff. The jury was asked for by
Mr. Salisbury, and in accordance with
the rule, the defendant had TO deposit
S2OO before the jurors were summoned.
Tho Court did not grant Mr.. sauls-
hury's notion, being loath to use tho
discretion given by law to tax tho cost
OF special jury upon the party losing
the case. The tendency is To make tho
party asking for the luxury of a special
Jury pay for it, the superior inteli.
gencooi special Jury being considered
equivalent to tho COSTS. This dicta
was aid down by Judge Gilpin and
tho present court is inclined 10 follow
H. in cases where the necessity Of n
spccial Jury i6 obvious, the Court will
exercise its discretion under tho statute
and tax mo costs on the party it deems
should hoar thcm, As "A general prin-
eipic y il only whom a party atrocously
abuses The process OF the court that the
Court is inclined 10 tax the costs upon
him,
Tho special jury in tho Wright case
was paitl off Thursday morning, the costs
reaching about Slj0.
AT the afternoon session Of court
| walter III. Hayes moved that all pend
| ing rules aud references be continued
until noxt term. This was done. II
| N formal action taken to prevent
rules end references from lapsing.
In tho eHso Of Eva Weldin VS.. Gmth.
rio the court granted James W. Ponder's
motion to have the plaintiffs next
friend, William B. Weldin, made party
| plaintiff.
Leonard Il. Wales, Jr., moved ia
amend the libel in tho divorce case ol
Mary N, Sparks vs. Dodo Sparks, in
order TO add thereto additional allega-
tions. The motion was denied on tic
| ground that the adverse party must be
present 20 that he may be acquainted
with the proposed amendments, because
lhey charged the issues. The liblo
having been filed and statutory service
maae On that basis, the only thing the
adverse purity is required to do is to
answer the libel in that form. If the
amendmcnt is necessary additional scr.
vice Is also necessary.
lhe court made the following rule:
a copy OF any pleading or other
paper required to loo filed in any cause
| or proceeding sbull be filed in thc nro.
thonotary's Office together with said
pleading Of paper, and such copy &c
filed shall be for the use of tho adverse