Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-02-27

Business Transacted at Recent Sessions OF
the County Tribunal.

The case OF Joseph 0teiWaBon 3 Son
vs. tho Wilmington Coal Gas Go. was
begun in superior court on Tuesday.
Hoifecser & Hoffncker represented tho
plaintiff, and William @. Spruance
and Arthur W. Spruance the defend
ant company. The matter in dispute
was claim for the refunding of
So 726. "a paid by Stelwagon to the gas
company for tar, under contract, be.
tween 1889 and 1894. The contention
was that plaintiff paid for coal gas tar,
and received water gas tar, which was
held to be not SO valuable. From the
expiration of the contract to date the
Interest on the claim brings the total
to 50, 065. rs.
William III. Stelwagon, manager Of
the Stelwagon works in Philadelphia,
where coal tar is distilled, was the first
witness.
Letters which passed between Stel-
wagon and the company were offered in
evidence. The witness was on the
stand until the noon recess.
Michael Giamatie appeared before tho
court to take out his second naturali2a-
tion papers. His voucher was Donate
Plaesa.
Settlement was reported in tho case
of Peter w. Calvin VS.. Isaac L. Quigley.
James w. Ponder and Levi 9. Bird
represented Calvin, and William S.
Hilles the defendant Calvin sued for
| damages for the loss of toes in flesh
ing machine.
The case Of james F. Kirkpatrick
vs. Vincent o. Hill was continued until
next term on account of the illness Of
tho defendant
The case Of Clark VS.. Pagan is the
only one that yet remains for trial
before thu general jury.
The case of Patrick j. Long, d. b.
a. va. Frederick Everill p. b. r. was
reported settled and marked discon-
tinued. Lilburne Chandler represented
Long, and T. Bayard Heisel, Everill.
In the case of Crawford's admins
traitor ys. Maxwell, continuance WAS
made with peremptory rule for trial
at the May term.
A special jury will be struck in the
case of Hiram Il. King VS.. the Della
ware Iron Co. of New Castle. Brad
ford, Vandegrift & Byrne represent
King and William 9. Spruance repre-.
sents tho iron company.
Charles Eastlake, distiller for
Joseph Stelwagon's Son Of Phiadel-
phia, testified in the suit against the
Wilmington Coal Gas Co., at Tuesday
afternoons session of superior court
David II. Wells tar roofer, also tes-
titled.
q. Ii. Groves, roofer with Frank
A. Mitchell, said water gas tar could
not be used in roofing.
William II. Stelwagon was recalled.
After he had been examined, William
II Alexander, another roofer, was
called to the stand, and he corrobor-
ated the other roofers as to the quail
ties of water gas tar.
The plaintiff rested. For the defence
Arthur w. Spruance moved a non suit.
He held that in order to maintain such
a form of action tho plaintiff must have
returned the tar which he received;
that otherwise he must sue upon the
contract. AS to the merits of the
case he held that because Of the fact
that the plaintiff had let the thing 20
on for five years, building up big
claim without giving any warning to
the company, non-suit should stand.
He cited authorities upon the first
point.
j. IL. Hoffecker, Jr., was about to
reply, but further consideration of the
matter was put off until yesterday
A Jury was called in the case of
Clark VS.. Pagan, which was fixed for
trial on Friday. All general jurors
not in the Stelwagon or Clark cases
were discharged from any further at
tendance at this term OF court
Al the evening session of oyer and
terminer court further argument was
heard upon tho motion for new trial
for Daniel Brown and John j. Swan.
The full bench was present Attorney
General Robert O. White for the State,
discussed propositions laid down by
counsel for the defence in their brief
submitted on Monday night. He
took exception to the proposition that
unless tho verdict satisfies the con
science of the Court new trial must
be granted. The sympathies and CON
sciences of the court should have no
effects but the legal Judgment of the
Court should prevail. The State, he
said, had produced two witnesses, one
of them unimpeached, and the defence
had produced apparently one UMPIRE
JUDGED witness. Between the testi-
mony the Jury, in his judgment, exer-
ciscd their discretion.
Admitting for the moment that
NAPLES was not allowed to testify, he
asked was the verdict clearly, palpably,
decidedly and strongly against the evil
dence? He held that the jury did not
give an erroneous verdict; and the
Court would not turn aside tho verdict
unless it appeared that the jury acted
from an improper motive, or did an
irrational thing. He held that it was
natural conclusion, even outside of
tho testimony of David M. NAPLES,
that these men Brown and Swan were
guilty.
He said there are few cases as one
sided as this. Had the prisoners not
been allowed to testify, what would
the defence have had left? He held
that the Court had nothing to do with
the matter Of reasonable doubt, for
that was question for the jury. He
admitted that an insane person should
not testify, but he took the ground that
when witness is objected to as insane
the Court can view the person and de-
eide as to his sanity. A mans state
mont not under oath is not testimony,
but the Court can examine his condi
ton. He also admitted the proposition
that "after insanity has been proved,
the presumption is against sanity,
which presumption continues until the
contrary is shown by evidence" but
he hold that in the NAPLES case the
contrary--that is, his sanity-was
shown. The Jury must determine as to
the value Of the testimony and the
Court is to determine whether it ia
testimony at all. He discussed the
question of proving what was charged
in the indictment. He held that Pisa 8
wounds were the natural consequences
nf tho actinna avnrred in tho inlict-