Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-11-26

and Willard Salisbury the defendant.
Upon the application Of W. ii. Boyce
Of Georgetown in the case Of Il. f.
Kirwin Manufacturing Go. Va. Joseph
d. Truxton, sheriff. ct al, the de.
fence received permission to withdraw
pleas and file new ones by next Mon
day.
In court of general sessions in the
case of James A. Power, editor Of the
Delaware Economist, charged with
malicious libel upon DR.. L. N. Slaugh-
ter, Josiah Marvel, for Power, presented
an affidavit that on account OF the ab-
sence OF material witnesses, Charles II.
Stevenson and James II. McAveny who
are out of the State, he could not safely
go to trial at this term. The case was
continued until the February term.
j. Frank Biggs and Walter Il.
Hayes. counsel for John M. Clayton,
charged with attempted bribery, tried
TO secure continuance until the
February term, but without SUCCESS.
An affidavit was presented to the effect
that Clayton's arrest was the result OF
a conspiracy. and that one Of the wit
neHses to the conspiracy was out of the
State. The court refused to continue
tins case on that ground and 1T was
fixed for trial on Tuesday Of next week.
Attorney General White announced
to the court that he had looked intp the
case of John H. Sterlith, who was
charged with using female under
the age Of consent for immoral pur-
poses, and had doubts of Sterlith's
guilt, and in view of that aud other
circumstances asked for nolle
prosequi. The case was dropped.
Horace Greeley Knowles REPRESENTED
Sterlith. After the case had been
abandoned the Chiof J uatice noticed
that the names OF 27 persons appeared
upon the docket as Witnesses for the
defence. which the State would have to
pay as witnesses. This was rubbing it
in cn the State pretty hard. Mr.
Knowles was asked about it and he
tried to explain why SO many had been
summoned. He said that some had
been summoned only for Monday which
made it less expensive than if they
had been summoned carrier. The court,
after heating his explanation, decided
that the State should only pay ~ Of
the witnesses for the defence, and
authorized Mr.. Knowles to select them.
The case OF Albert Heudle, charged
with assault with intent to kill, which
came over from the last term was con-
tinued until next term on account of
the illness Of "a witness for the defence
w. ii. Hayes represented Hendle.
Court adjourned until afternoon.
David j. Murphey Of Newark ap-
peared before the superior court on
Monday afternoon and presented pc
tition asking for the diecontinuance of
the divorce suit brought by him against
his wife, Mary Murphey, in which pc
tition he cast reflections upon William
@. Spruance. who had represented Mrs
Murphey, and upon William S. Prickett,
who had been MI. Murphey's. own
counsel. In view OF the iusinuations
and Mr.. Murphoy's actions, Mr..
Prickett asked leave to withdraw from
the case as counsel for Mr.. Murphey,
which the court allowed, and then
being without COUNSEL Mr.. Murphey
was permitted to make statement to
the court. Mr.. Spruance, together with
Mr.. Prickett repealed the insinuatious
made, and the court refused to grant
the petition.
About 1893 Mr.. Murphey applied for
a divorce on the ground OF desertion.
In accordance with a custom the wife
asked the court for aimony and coun-
sci fees during the case. This appli-
cation was granted and Mr.. Murphey
was ordered to pay So a week alimony,
together with an amount for counsel
fees and court expenses. At that time
the court heard testimony as to the
value of his property before making
the order. Since then it is alleged
that Mr.. Murphey has paid nothing
under the order and the case therefore
hangs as it did at the time the order
was made; or unless he obeys the order
of the court the case can neither be
discontinued nor advanced.
Monday Mr.. Murphey presented
HE petition to the court to discontinue
the case and alleged that he had placed
5000 in the hands OF the defendants
counsel, (Mr. Spruancel. to cover the
complete settlement uf all alimony.
He insinuated that there had been
some bargain between Mr.. Spruance
and Mr.. Prickett In the matter. Mr..
Spruance denied that there was any
bargain and he termed as utterly false
the statement about the $500. Mr..
Spruance went on to show that the
only ground for the statement about
Murphey had separated, Murphey
$500 for Mrs. Murphey to sign the
deed; but that was loug before the
divorce proceedings and had no pos
sible connection in any way. Mr..
Spruance further said that this case
had been very disagreeable to him.
He considered that it would be very
improper for tho gentleman to come
and discontinue the suit and vacate
the order. He declared that every
thing had been done regularly.
Chief Justice Lore stated to Mr..
Murphey that he appeared upon the
record of the court as having counsel
who had never been discharged, and
SO long as he had counsel he could not
address the court; and in no event
could the court permit him or any
other person to Withdraw an applica.
tion until the order of the court had
been carried out Mr., Murphey as.
serted that his honor had advised him
to present tho matter to the court; but
the Chief Justice replied that he sup
posed he had no COUNSEL,
AT this iuncture Mr., Prickett ad-
dressed the court and announced that
he had not Withdrawn nor had he been
discharged; but in view of the dis
courtesy which had been shown
through the presentation of such
paper without consulting him, and for
his own self-respsct, which would pre-
vent him from serving Mr.. Murphey
any longer, he respectfully asked the
court TO be allowed to withdraw from
the case. The court allowed him to
do so and one of the judges remarked