Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-02-20
SUPEnIoR cOUMr.
The Case OF Jefferis vs.. Carpenter Settled
at Tuesday Mornings Session.

Inc Case OF Jefferis vs. Carpenter Settled
at Tuesday Mornings Session.
In superior court Tuesday morning a
Jury was called in the. case OF Mayor
Charles II. JeiIeris ys.o Frank D. Car
pcnter's administrator! Levi Q. Bird
represented the plaintiff and William
Michael Byrne, the defendant. A set
Element had been agreed upon and the
Jury gave a verdict for 5000 in favor Of
the plaintiff. The verdict was taken
to bind the defendant administrator,
and through this action, he and his
bond are relieved from liability.
Lilburne Chandler, for the plaintiff,
asked leave to file an amended narr 10
the case of Luther w. Ewing, ct al. w.
Mary Toy. The request was granted
and the cases of Ewing VS.. Alfred s.
Elliott, ct al, and Mary Toy went to
the foot of the list.
In the case Of Henry kroehl vs.
Rene ]. Fougeray, the sum of $780,
the proceeds of the Union Park sale,
having nearly all been distributed
among employees, H. II. Ward, counsel
for Kroehl moved for the distribution
of the balance in the registry of the
court, for the payment of costs, leaving
$40 applicable towards the payment OF
the execution. The amount Of Kroehl's 3
claim was about So 600. The petition
was filed.
The cases of Vincent o. Hill va
James Grim and James +. kirkpatrick
vs.. Hill we're continued until the next
term, with peremptory rule for trial.
Thomas Davis. representing Hill, pre-
sented a physician's certificate that
Hill was unable to attend.
In the case of Abraham Stein vs.
Isaac Il. Quigley, william S. ailles,
attorney for defendant, obtained rule
for security for costs.
In the case of the Forepaugh Co. vs.
the News Publishing Co. was con-
tiuued until the next term.
The jury was discharged until 10
o'clock yesterday morning, but court
adjourned until 2.30 O'Clock Tuesday
afternoon.
In superior court Tuesday afternoon
In the divorce case of Emaline Taylor
vs. George W. Taylor, Thomas Davis.
commissioner, asked for the publica.
tion of the award, which was granted.
The commissioners award was in favor
of granting divorce.
Argument was begun In case in
yolving an important point. Irwin
Furtiek had his property in South
Carolina insured in the Liverpool, Lon
don and Globe Insurance Co. 1t was
destroyed by fire and So, 600 insurance
was due Mr.. Furtick. Furtick is said
to be debtor to the Wilmington and
Brandywine Bank of this city, and In
order TO secure the claim, the bank
levied an attachment upon Ferdinand
j.. Gilpin, Delaware agent of the in
surance company. Furtick himself
having brought suit in South Carolina
against the company for his money.
The question is, in which State must
the company pay the S., ,000? William
S. Hilles representing MIR. GiIpin,
asks to have tho attachment against
him vacated. Mr. Gilpin went on the
stand Tuesday and testified that he
never insured any property in South
Carolina, that he was agent for Della
ware, and that no money was owed
Furtick in this State. Mr.. Hilles ar
gued TO the Court Tues lay afternoon
and John Biggs, who represents the
bank, argued yesterday morning.
The case of Tschudy n Cats VS..
Mark q. Lohand which was marked
for trial yesterday was discontinued
upon the application of plaintiffs
counsel, Martin B. Burris.