Evening journal., 1898-05-31
WORK ON CIVIL LIST.
Lodge Won His Case Against
Ainscow & Co.
TROUBLE OVER PRoMIssORY MOTH
CASE AGAINST TINE w. & N. RAIL
ROAD COMPANY SETTLED.
TRIAL. OF A CASE AGAINST TINE
RAILWAY COMPANY SET FOR
THIS AFTERNOON.

THIS AFTERNOON.
Judge spruance charged the jury in
the appeal case or Richard II. Lodge
p. b., A.. VS.. A. l.. Ainscow & Co., d. b.
r. At l040 the jury retired ana shortly
before noon resumed and reported to
the Supeior Court that it had reached a
verdict for Lodge, the amount being
S1S9.07.
Announcement was made that the
case OF Edward Goodwin VS.. the Will
mington and Northern Railroad Com
pany, pending since November, 1897
was settled.
Under peremptOry rule for trial al
the next term of court, the case Of
Thomas Y. England VS. the city was
continued. The case Of Alice and
! Thomas Muffin vs.. Blumenthal 6 Co.
was continued until September.
Colonel Nields asked that Judgment
| for want Of appearance entered against
! George W. Vernon. Stephen DOwney
and Daniel +. Stewart. in the cases OF
the use Of the News Publishing Com
pany VS. Peirce Gould ct al, be stricken
from the record. He claimed that tho
sure,ics had appeared, but that there
had been no notation OF the fact en-.
tered, the omission being due to a mis-
apprehension The judges consulted
and granted the request. The appear
ance was noted and the pleas OF th,
surcties fled. The court stated tina
this could not be taken as a precedent
but that hereafter an appearance wOnl,
| have TO be entered In regular form.
The case Of Lewis Brown VS.. tn
Wilmington City Railway Company
was set for trial this afternoon. lii
burn Chandler will represent the plain
I tlm and Willard Salisbury. Jr., the dc
| fondant corporation.
A jury was drawn to bry the case G
y | william G. Beck et al, d. b. a., vs.. Wi
g liam E. JarreM. p. b., r. Martin BURR
| represented Beck and Gcoding
BroclsOn were attorneys for farrell.
Mr. GoOding stated to- the jury tn,
y the suit was brought to recover ba
ance due on q note bearing date JAM
u ary I 1884, made payable seven montl
" after date said note having been mac
by William c. Beck and r. NJ. WaltC
u In favor of William T.. farrell. TT
a. face of the note was Si0460 which q
u defendant promised 10 pay TO Mr.. ia
rell. There had been paid on the no
as $40 and s6.94. making a total of S46.9
.d leaving q balance due Of $5677, wi
| interest amounting ID flostV anu II
IN per cent collection fees amounting
@ $3.67. The total claim was s77.03.
e recover this suit was brought before
IL MAGISTRATE and the verdict we
against necl1 He took an appeal
W the Superior Court
n William e. FARRELL ana Constal
" Joseph G. Smith took the stand a
IT. gave testimony concerning the maxi
10. OF the note and the payments and II
el cation which followed.
OF Mr.. Burris contended that his ellen
ondorser had paid the balance due
io the ncte but that Jarrtl had credit
ON the payment to some other account.
or Walton testified that On Angus
III 1895. he paid Jarrolls wife $50 TO 81
w. her husband as a payment on the no
'st and that William G. Beck gave h
de the money TO pay to FARRELL. Beck e.
rcborated this statdm-nl.
all After hearing brief argument
Of court charged the jury and % retired