Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1897-01-14
EWISGs GET $4,000.
Second Jury in the Damage Case Again,
the city Soon Reaches a Verdict.

Second Jury in the Damage Case Against
the city Soon Reaches a Verdict.
The suit OF Luther w. Ewing and
his wife Sydney h. Ewing. to recover
Sl5, 600 damages from the Mayor and
Council Of Wilmington for injuries to
Mrs. Ewing's ankle, received by step.
ping into nn opening caused by two
separated gutter plates. was brought
to close Thursday afternoon in the
superior court when Foreman :. A.
Collins announced the verdict OF the
jury to be in favor of the plaintiff for
the sum OF 90, 600.
The accident on which the action
was brought occurred on the night of
October 18th, 1894, as Mrs. Ewing, in
company with Mrs Dora Schultz, was
ON her way home from lecture at
Grace Church. As she was passing
along Ninth street between Shipley
and Orange she stepped into gutter
plate and sprainsd the ankle 30 badly
that for year afterward she was un.
able TO walk about without tho aid OF
crutches. She has never regained the
proper use of her foot and the injury
may remain the rest of Der life. The
gutter plate where the accident oG-
cured was over gutter used to drain
the properties No. Ill and 1l3 West
Ninth street.
At the September term OF court Mrs.
Ewing, through her counsel, Lilburne
Chandler, brought suit against tho
owners OF the property, but the suit
was dropped.
On Friday, December 18th, action
was brought against the city and after
the jury bad been out for 551a hours
the court dismissed them as they were
unable to agree on verdict,
Counsel for the plaintiff desired o
new trial Immediately, hut the Christ
mas holidays interferred and the case
was taken up Monday morning week,
throe days were occupied in hearing
tho evidence and tho closing argument
was made Thursday afternoon by W. S,
hilles, 1t was one Of the ablest argu.
ments ever heard at the Court House
and received the praise Of everyone.
Judge Cullen then delivered the
charge to the Jury and at A o'clock
they retired. They only remained out
one hour and IL minutes when they re-
turned with tho verdict for tine plain
tiff for the amount OF $1,000 Mr..
Hartman had previously noted an OK
ception to the charge OF the court.
After the verdict was announced, the
general Jurors were discharged from
any further attendance at this term.
While the Ewing jury was out a
jury of inquisition was drawn and
awarded tho Joseph Bancroft & Sons
Go, s60S. so against the Anna Kurtz
Bag Manufacturing Co.
Mr. Lyman announced that counsel
had agreed to refer the case of Dryer
va. White Bros. to Francis NJ. Walker
as referee.
Arguments in regard to technical
points OF Law in tho case Of Norfolk
Timier Go. vs. William Simmons,
occupied tho attention of superior
court during the greater part of Friday
mornings session. In the case OF
Leibig vs.. Paul Gillis. 2. l.. Cooper
counsel for plaintiff, was instructed TO
prepare further bill of particulars
The case of Veal W. Gail was returned
to the trial list.
City Solicitor Hartman gave notice
that he would file reasons for a new
trial in the case of Ewing va. the
Mayor and Council. He stated, how
ever, that ii the motion was refused
that he would take the case to the court
OF errors and appeals.
The license application of Mrs.
Margaret He'll was taken up in
general sessions court Saturday morn
ing. Several witnesses testified that they
had signed the remonHtrance against
Mrs. He'll under the impression that
another person was the applicant A
general remonstrance against the an.
phcation was filed by the Law and
Order Society.
Argument in the certioiari case of
Francis o. Elliott VS.. the Town Coun.
Gil of Newark was heard, j. Harvey
Whiteman and q. b. Evans appearing
for Elliott and e. NJ. Curtis for the
defendant. Tho writ was dismissed
Tho rulo to set aside sheritf's sale.
Lane VS.. Peters administrators was
| dismissed and tho sale confirmed
The rule to set aside tho sheIff a sale
in the case of Chambers VS.. Guthrie'
was dismissed and the sale cunfirmed
| William f. Smalley asked to have
the replevin case of Louie Destafani
vs.. Joseph l.. Carpenter, Jr., reopened
Mr.. Smalley was counsel for plaintiff
and \. W. Spruance for the defendant
Tho former ed to Withdraw from
the case and hilburne Chandler was
substituted. Through some misuDder.
standing Judgment was entered at the
November term for want OF appearance
in favor of the defendant.
After explanations by counsel the
court decided that it was a matter for
counsel in the case to decide, and dis.
missed the application.
Messrs. Knowles and Hartman an.
peared with their reasons for new
trial IN the Ewing case, but Mr.. Hilles
objected, on the ground that one of
the allegations presented u matter with
Which he was unacquainted until 10
O'Clock, Saturday and therefore had
not mad time 10 prepare an answer.
Court had decided to adjourn how.
ever and argument will ba heard when
court reconvenes on January 25th.
The reasons for new trial were
accordingly filed with this under.
standing. -.
The court handed down its decision
IN the license cases.. refusing the appli.
cations of Margaret He'll, Thomas
Murphy and Reynolds Bros. John M.
Mulrooney had Withdrawn his appIiea.