Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-12-17
COURT AFFAIRS.
The Proceedings Tuesday Afternoon and
Yesterday Morning.
EWING CASE GIVEN TO THE JURY
Exception to Charge Noted
BY Counsel.

When court reconvened on Tuesday
morning Levi G. Bird reported the
settlement of the suit of Myer Wilenzig
vs.. the N. ". p. & N. Railroad Go.
The SUIT was TO recover 81, 100 for
merchandise which the plaintiff hau
shipped from Shenandoah, Va, to
Seaford, DEL, and which was lost.
The plaintiff believed the railroad
company responsible, but afterwards
learned that the company was not re-
sponsible, and the case was settled.
The examination of DR.. John j.
Jones was then resumed In the Ewing
| damage case. After cross- examination
by Mr.. Hiles the witness stepped
down and Drs. Ii. W. Briggs, II. j.
Stubs and J. I. V. Blocksom were
called upon for their opinion as to
whether the plaintiff had acted
prudently in not calling physician in
Immediately after the accident
occurred. They we're all of the opinion
that she had not acted 10 a prudent
manner.
Mr.. Knowles called Street and Sewer
Director William Simmons and ex-
Street Commissioner McCoskey. his
purpose being to prove the gutter
| plates to be in the same condition to-
day aH they were at the time of the
accident. This testimony was objected
| to by Mr.. Hilles and the court sus-
tanned the objection.
| Both sides here rested and the law in
the case, with the prayers of both sides
we're read.
At ~. ID o'clock Mr.. Chandler began
his address to the jury. Each side was
limited to one hour. Mr. Chandler
was glad to say the case was ready for
the jury. The city's negligence bad
not only caused plaintiff an injury
which would last throughout her life,
hut had caused her and her family
great deal OF expense. He only asked
| that reasonable verdict BIO given in
favor of bis client to recompense her
for her injuries and the damages. lie
closed at IL. 40 o'clock.
Mr.. Elliott followed for the city. He
fully sympathized with the plaintiff
in her in jury. but the case was not to
he considered from eympathetic
standpoint. Although there was
great deal of testimony in the case the
preponderance OF that in regard to the
| condition OF the gutter was on the
side Of the city. Therefore the Court
would remind the jury of the fact when
delivering the charge and he would ask
for verdict in favor of the city. He
closed at LOS o'clock and court adj
iourned until 2. 80 o'clock.
One of tho jurors in the Ewing
damage case was absent for an hour
Tuesday afternoon and while court
was awaiting his appearance, jury
was drawn to try the appeal case Of
School district No. of Brandywipe
hundred VS.. David q. Furry; Walter
II. Hayes for the commissioners and
Harry Whiteman for Furry. Tho latter
had secured verdict 10 the court
below for salary, he having alleged that
his contract as teacher called for $40
month for 10 months. The case was
appealed to superior court and resulted
in a verdict in favor of the school COM
missioner5, as after the examination of
several witnesses IL was shown that no
contract existed and the case was given
to the jury, with instructions to bring
in verdict in favor of the COM
missioners.
The absent juror having arrived,
Messro. Hilles and Knowles completed
the argument to the jury for their
respective sides in the damage case.
Associate Judge Cullen charged the
Jury III the Ewing damage case yester-
day morning. The charge was a lengthy
one, being somewhat similar to the one
delivered in the Seward case at the
May term.
The jury retired at 10. % o'clock and
City Solicitor Hartman Immediately
noted exceptions to the charge. Judge
Cullen said that he was glad Mr..
Hartman had taken the exceptions, as
it would bring it before, the court of
errors and appeals to define certain
points which the court coulo not get
away from, in view of previous
decisions by the courts of this State.
the trial list was then gone over,
the first case called being that of
Voshell OF al, vs. Lavender. The
defendant was on the jury in TIM Ewing
damage case. and the case was con-
tinued until tho jury should return.
Harry Emmons reported tho settle
ment of the case OF Lazard Freres vs..
Gray. a
The case Of the Norfolk Timber 90.
VS.. William Simmons to recover
damages caused by the attachment of
raft of piles while on route through
Delaware & chesapeake canal was
called. There wns evidently some mis-
understanding of this case, as Mesars.
Higgins and Churchman understood
that they were still entitled to their
place on the list. Mr.. Ward had
associated Mr.. Nieltla with him in the
case and the latter several days ago
asked for continuance. They were
now ready 10 go ahead, not having Inst
their place in reality, but court decided
that they must take the foot of the
list
Mr.. Hoifecker thought that the case
of j. Q. Dryer & Go. vs. White Bros.
would be settled.
A continuance until the February
term was granted in the case of Henry
W. Morrow vs.. Alfred Turner, on APP
plioation of John III. Rodney.
Senator Gray asked for continuance
of the case of Charles Fl. Stewart, ct
al, vs.. the r., w. & B. Railroad Go.
In support of his motion he stated that
the narr alleged that the acsident |
which resulted in the suit occurred on
April 4th, 1895. On December 9th Mr.. |
Gray received notice from Mr.. Higgins |
of counsel for plaintiff that the date
of the accident was May 3D., 1895. On |
this account Mr.. Gray desired con-
tinuance, which was granted.
A continuance until the February |
term was also granted in the case of |
George W. Pierce Vs. the Mayor and |
(ioupeiI oF Win, inutpn