Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-06-23
THOMAS GETS A VERDICT.


tion list was given by each aide. Argu-
mont in the case was concluded at
o'clock.
Tho trial of the case of Lewis L.. Will
cox, administrator of johanna q. Wilcox,
va. the Wilmington City Railway Co. was
continual until September 18th, when
the court will hold an adjourned sss
sion. The counsel we're informed that
they must finish before September
10th, when the September term will
begin.
Immediately after the c0nvening of
corut, Thursday morning, Chief Justice
Lore charged the jury in the Thomas
Grise case, consuming 10 minutes.
Mr.. Richards filed an exception to the
charge. The jury retired at l030
o'clocB.
At IL. 10 o'clock the Thomas. G, Use
jury rendered verdict in favor OF the
plaintiff for $500, tritle more than
one half of ths sum sued for. The
plaintiff had asked for S5iS. 5O--S5OO,
the amount of the check, ard sdS. %,
interest.
The settlement Of the cases OF Mary
A. Cole aud Samuel NJ Cole vs.. tho
Wilmington City Railway Co. was an
nounced.
The Suneriur Court devoted all of
Thursday AFTERNOON to hearing argument
on ii. Ii. Wards application for writ
of foreign attachment in the case OF
Hannah Smith Va Armour Il Go. The
court stated that the question was an
interesting one, and it would probably
take considerable time TO consider IT.
Decision may not be rendered before
September. MIR. Ward filed a similar
application in the cnss Of Elwood Il.
Caldwell VS.. Armour & Co.
Al Friday mornings session, IN the
case of ThomRs Reardon. bailiif,vs. John
S. Gsisendorfer, an action for rent, jury
OF inquiaition awarded the plaintiff
judgment for $40. In the case Of DIR.
j. Paul Lukens VS.. the estate of Jere-
miah Mcdaniel, jury of inquisition
awarded the plaintiff judgment Tor
S2Sl. 80.
In Court on Friday afternoon
many lawyers were present, expect
| ing to hear interesting arguments in
the case of Samuel D. Forhoa and
Maria &. Hartmann, d. b., vs. the
| State of Delaware, p. b., testing this
legal existence of the Municipal Court
| City Solicitor Conrad and Assistant
| City Solicitor Oahoon represented the
State, and William F.. Smalley, Jr.,
and OK Senator Higgins were counsel
for tho defendants below. The case
was quickly ended by Mr.. Conrad, who
asked that the writ of rertiorari be
quashed and the citation dismissed,
which request was granted. lie gave
the following reasons:
First Because, as tine record showed,
the REALTORS, defendants below, did not,
before the issuing of the writ Of GER
tiorari, enter into recOgnizance to
the Mayor and Council Of Wilmington
in a penalty and with surety approved
ny the prothonotary OF the Superior
Court, and with condition that they
should prosecute the writ with effect
or abide tine judgment of the Municipal
Court il they should fail TO make Their
plea good or the same be affirmed by
the Superior Court.
Second-Tbat no such recognizanct
as ia required by section 20, Vol. xvii.
Laws of Delaware, was entered upor
the docket of the Superior Court sue
ceeding the entry of the csrtiorari.
Third-Because there WAS fata
defect of parties in the proceeding
The record showed that Samuel ID.
Forbes, Maria G. Hartmann and Jnme'
Porter were all defendants below, ar
rested upon the same warrant ut thu
same time, and were all convicted ant
sentenced in the same cause in thu
Municipal Court, and only two of thu
defendants were joined herein.
Commenting on the disposition Ut thu
case, Mr.. Smalley stated that he would
renew it, that the writ had beeI
quashed and the citation dismissed
merely on a technically.
The remainder of the afternoon wa
devoted to the two cases Of the use o
the News Publishing Go. VS.. ex-Sherif
PIERCE Gould and his suretiea. Ex
Senator Higgins representa- the plain
tilt, and Benjamin Nields was counae
for the defendants. The attorney
agreed ON a case stated as to the facts
and the sole question presented for tn
consideration OF the court was whethe
, or not Gould'a suretiss in his ufficis
, recognizance, made at the time b
, entered into ofiice, were liable for none
! recsived by him to pay for advertiser
sheriii's sales in the Morning News
The question was a mere technical In
depreciation of the recognizance an
the statute on the subject as to whethe
8 the collection Of such money was a
|, oIlicial act which would render hi
suretes us well as himself liable or
mere private act for which be alou
I was liable Tho amount involved
the case il about 81, 100. Decision va
1 reserved.
:. miscellaneous business was trans
acted Saturday morning.
:, In the cases of the Morning News VI
' Peirce Gould, ct al, the court decide
i that Gould was liable under his recoe
a nizance. Mr.. Nields filed an exceptio
to the decision. Judgment for Sl,0t
!, in favor of the plaintiff was given.
The divorce case of Ella y. Ripple
q VS.. Roland W. Rippiger was continue
/, until the September term.
\ In the case of John r. Mari Vi
i, Henry II. Brown, ct al, the rule
= show cause why certain iudgmer
- should not be satisfied was made abs
p" lutte, and the judgment satisfied.
On motion OF II. II. Ward, Martin I
Smith OF Little Rock, Ark, was at
s mitted to the bar.
lie judgment for the defendant. Il
It costs, was given in thu case of Franc
's Tosney ys. the Metropolitan Life Ii
e surance O.
~ Sheriff Finn was allowed addition
ii costs, amounting to IS. 90, in the CA
ct OF Charles Frazer VS.. Peter Sanfol
r. Ross
7; On the application of Richard Gea
81 his next friend, John P. Gear, VI
IL admitted TO prosecute his suit again
is the F., W. & u. Railroad Co.
ID In the case of Proctor & Gamble Y
Quigley & Mullen, judgment was CO
fessed in favor of the plaintiff, Il
amount to be ascertainod by the pr
I, | tbonnfarv