The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1898-09-28
FOUR MEN Z.
ESCAPE DEATH
All the Alleged Ravishers
are Now Free Men.
Mu nicipal Courts
Existence.

lternoon Antoni, Grovanni Camille Dono-
flo and Camilla Sisifo were acquitted Of
ravishing little Marie Fontenelli after the
jury had been out an hour. The mon left
the box smiling
The court then took up the case OF Ed.
ward Lewis, colorod charged with
rape on Mary Price. or Butcher, also COL
ored. He was brought into the court
room by Tipstaves Martin and Powell, and
placed in tho dock. ID. j. Rheinhardt
repre- sented the prisoner. and Attorney
General White md his deputy, Peter l..
Cooper. Jr., conducted the case tor the
state.
Some difficulty was experienced In OBJ
tanning jury, by reason of the challenges
and the number excused from service.
There were fifteen challenges. Sixteen
men were excused because they had either
expressed an opinion or had conscientious
scrupe'. This jury was selected: Lewis
X. Bowen, James McAllister, Warren b.
Missimer, f. b. Stevens, 4. W. Young.
Robert N. Bowen, II. 4. Stnats, j. B. Nc
Allister. John Moody. John Mccormick.
William Grover and John Campbell.
Mr., Cooper outlined tho case; then he
called Mary Price, tho prosecuting wit
ness to the stand, and she testified to tine
alleged assault She stated that on the
night Of Juno4th about l. o'clock she was
in Il restaurant at Water and Market
streets when Lewis came In. After eating
some lunch she went out and over the
bridge, leaving Lewis In tho place. She
went on over home, and while going
along Guthrie's lane II man jumped out
and caught her by the throat throwing
her down, and committing an assault up
on her.
Here the state rested and Mr.. Relnhnrdt
took up the Cross-examinution,,b ut owing
to 1t being SO late court adjourned.
Immediately after this mornings OPEN
ing Of Court the prisoner was brought into
Court, and his prosecution abandoned, tho
State having learned thnt tho prosecuting
witucss bore an unsavory reputation pre-
| viOus to the commitment OF the alleged
crime In dischnrging Lewis the Court
remarked that he hid had n narrow escape
aud advised him to never again appear be-
fore the Court.
SUPERIOR COURT BUSINESS
A jury Of lnquisitlon gave II. |. DUPONT
q verdict nf 1919. rent for the Anderson
farm in Brandy wine Hundred lately ten
nntcd by William Kec.
In the Kenncy VS. Congdon libel case
counsel reported that they had agreed on
bail to the amount Of $4,000.
In tho case Of Thomas VI Grier which
involved the sale Of thePcnlnsulaAi Methodist
cohnsol for the derpsc withdrew tho mo.
ton for new trial made at the last term
Of court The verdict Of $500 against the
defendant therefore stands
Upon the application of William +.
Smaley the return Of tho commissioner
in the divorce case Of Susan VS. Joseph
WiggleSworth time for tho return of
which had been extended until to-day,
was again continued until the November
torn. Mr.. Smallsy stating that material
witness was out Of this jurisdiction.
The return Of divorce In tho case Of
Georgiannn Bailey W. Alexander Bailey
was Confirmed.
In tho case OF johnson VS. johnson, the
wife was allowed SO alimony pending the
divorce proceedings.
Both tho general and special Jury panels
were discharged during tho MOI ming.
Argument In the case of certiorarI OF
Samuel ID. Forbes, Maria Hartman and
James Porter vs. Municipal Court, which
invokes the existence Of the Court was
entered into by William H. Smnlley and
Higgins for the plaintiffs and
solicitor Conrad and assistant solicitor
Caho0n for the Court.
The Superior Court term which will
finish its business OH Saturday, has grant
ed nm unusually large number of divorces
constitution the Superior court Ia the only
divorce body In the Safe And all the
divorces granted by it hnve been strictly
within the statutory limit, which was
not always tho case when the Legislature
hal in charge the scvering of marriage |
VOWS.
Mr.. Smalley I'm his briefs, set out that
IN June %. 1898, Mr.. Forbes, Mrs. Hart
mann and Mr.. Porter woro fined $50 and
lad no Jurisdiction IN such cases mas
much us 1t did not exist, the constitution
which went into effect on June 10, 1898
.bolishing tho court.
Mr.. Conrad. in opening for the defen &C.
rgued that the existence of tho court de-
'ended altogether upon the construc ton
o DO given that part of the constitution
'oarlng OH the point In question and held
hat tho court was In no sense State
curt as tho constitutional clause had
made 1t appear and as the plaintiffs had
verred. On tho other hand, Mr. Conrad
ontcnded that as the court was one Of the
orporate bodies Of the city 1t WAS protect
d by section 4 of article 9 of the coust;-
ution, which reads:
"Iho rights, privileges immnnltios and
81 ates of religious societies and corporate
odios, except rs herein otherwise provid-
d. shall remain as If tho Constitution of
his state had not been altered"
Mr.. Conrad held that 1t was not the in
,ntion Of the General Asse to over
'ok tho Court as was done in the cGnsti-
lti0nal articles bearing on tho state
and quoted Gut horities Of courts
'heIc real construction always prevailed
yer the literal construction to DO given
auses which wore enshrouded in doubt.
He did not mean, ho explained, that it
as tho duty of the court to correct legs-
.tive mistakes, but that the courts could
lace the proper construction upon its