The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1897-02-16
roansr WANTS wAaRa
he iiad Charge Of ,. Edward Add,ekss
Yuchi mud Now sues for Unpaid salary.

ne Hnd Charge Of =. Edward Addicks'
zach, mud Now Sues for Unpaid Salary.
Frank Torrey's suit against J. Edward
Addlcks to recover 5000, with intere6t from
April /, 1895, for services rendered was
begun before q jury In Superior Ootift this
morning. James w. Ponder Appeared
for Mr.. Torrey, Walter H. Hayes and
George Lodge for Mr.. Addicks.
Mr.. Torrey Is the captain who had charge
OF MI Addlcks, steam yacht '.Now Then
previous to tho beginning Of the suit. In
opening his case, Mr.. Ponder said tie cap
tain In 1879 was engaged by Mr.. Addioks
to take charge OF the yacht at salary of
sl2o per month"; which amount was bald
until 1884, when the salary was reduced to
$lO0 per month. Besides this amount
captain Tcrrey was to receive 90 per week
f0r board, when the yacht was out Of
commission, but as this had not been set
out IN the narr, through an oversight, 40
tlon was not to recover that amount
In the summer Of 1891 the Captain
agreed with Mr.. Addicks to take charge Of
the yacht which he did until October and
for which he received pay. But he receivt
ed none after that date and as his contract
dld not expire until May 1895 he believed
SIX months salary was duo him and
brought the suit.
Captain lorrey went on the stand and
eIorro6orated the foregoing, excepting
mat Seo should have been deducted, Mr..
Aadieks furnishing him, theIwitness, the
while she was In Delaware waters,
The assistant recommended by Mr.. Al,
dicks was III, SO the captain kept the
money and charged 1t against Mir. Ad.
dicks account with him. The proving OF
the verbal contract by Mr.. Fender met
with considerable difficulty but he finally
succeeded In proving IT.. Mr.. Ponder had
the witness deny that he had been engage
ed by Mrs. Addtcks after she and her
received instructions from Mrs Addicks
but had never been paid by her for any
services rendered. In concluding the Ell.
animation Mr.. Ponder asked the witness
II he had been discharged by Mr.. Addicks
the answer to which was that ho never
had.
Instead Of putting Mr.. Addcks on the
stand, Walter H. Hayes moved for non.
suit on the ground that Mr. Ponder had
not proven that Mr.. Torrey was captain or
master OF the craft, and having taken
,harge Of the yacht without license he
vas directly violating n United States
aw, In answering tho motion Mr. pom,
Ter informed the Court that Mr.. Addi6ks
vas aware that Captain Torrey was prac.
icing without q license and was conee,
luently violator of tho United States
tatute which wrong he now wanted the
ourt to sanction.
The court considered the question nav
me and held that the United States stat.
lie dld not compel steam yacht to carry
licensed master or captain, therefore
!smissed the motion, whereupon Mr.
iayes submitted tho case and asked that
he jury be charged to render verdict In
avor OF the defendant because the plain.
III had engaged as master of the yacht
Without being the possessor Of license.
ms question SO perplexed the court
hat they deemed IL advisable TO make no
nswcr uGt,l this afternoon.
A decree of divorce in the case OF Home.
'ood VS.. Humewood was confirmed.
Lewis G. Vandegrift filed his reasons
or new trial in the case of the Diamond
tate Iron Company d. b. a.. VS.. Draper
:. Bell, p, b. r. The grounds were that
ne verdict was contrary to the evidence
nd law in the case. No day was fixed for
rgulneUt,