Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-03-03

slready said, in mitigation Of damages.
II, however, the conduct OF the hus
band has been such as tn iustify the
wife In leaving him, be cannot main
tain an action against another who
assists her, or receives or harhors her,
provided his assistance is rendered from |
motives of humanity and not from nm
evil motive or purpose, or in badsfalth
toward the husband. ! Bishop On NJ.
and ID. Sec. 1862.
IL YOU should conclude, after care
fully and fairly considering and weigh
ing all the testimony as you have heard
it from the witnesses, and applying the
law as the court has declared IL to you.
thnt the defendant committed adultery
with tho wife uf the Plaintiff then
your verdict should he for such amount
as in your judgment will compensate
the plaintiff for his mentnl suffering
FROM tho dishonor of the marriage bel,
and the losa OF the affection of hia
wife and the comfort Of her society. aH
well as the pecuniary loss OF her
services 1t is for you to say whether
from the evidence it III shown that the
defendant did commit adultery with
the wife OF the plaintiff
no proof OF adultery 10 this case, but
are satisfied that the defendant did
ALLEVIATE the affections Of plaintiffs
wife, your verdict should be for such
amount as 10 your judgment will com
pensato the plaintiff for the loss Of his
wifs's serN ices and marital consnrt,
less the value of the husband duty to
support, clothe, cherish and care for
| her: provided, however, that in no
event can you award damages for any
wrong or injury committed prior to the
| fifth day of May, 1891, that heing throe
years before the commencement of tho
present action which was entered Oh
tho fifth day OF May, 1897.
We will say TO you, gentlemen Of the
! jury, that il. you believe from pre-
punderauce Gf tho evidence that the
defendant wilfully ami maliciously
committed the injury or wrong cum
planned Of in this action. you may in
addition TO any compensatory damages
that you think him entitled to, award
to the plaintiff such damages as you
may consider proper as punishment
to the defendant anu an example tn
others But We say to you that such
damages are based Oh the ennrmity ni
the UlIecce and its malicious, wilful
and aggravated character, Rnd you
must ha satisfied that such was the
character of tho offence before you car
award damages of this kind. 1t has
been held by this court heretofore that,
lit was question for the jury 10 say
whether there were circumstances o.
aggravatinu 10 the case which ought il
tbeiI judgment 10 require a departure
from ths general rule of compensation
damages. and which called IN them tt
add anything by way OF public example
or punishment.
Tine Jury retired about ~. % o'clock
, This court declared the recent election
, Of the Republican Printing and Pub
/ fishing Go. 10 have been illegal Hnt
orIiered another election.
Upon the application Of Levi G.. Bird
attorney for the defendants, the cas-
of Charles II. Dnnahoe vs. the receiver
, of the Baltimore e. Ohio Railroad Co.
, was transferred to the United State
; Circuit Court. the amount OF damage
claimed being greater than -, 600, an
the defendants being non residents @
: Delaware. A bond Of $3.50 was given
with John G. Farra as security.
\ jury was drawn to try the appel
o case of John g. Wahl, defendant belo'
Q appellant va. Or. christopher b. Nau
: dain, plaintiff below respondent.
9 DIR. Naudain testified that hs al
q teudsd Florence Zebley during a seriou
i illness lasting from January 4th, ls9;
8 to May 9th Of that year, making MOI
4 than 800 visits, for 2$i of which
d charged and for which no now elaine
II $500 compensation.
n Florence Zeblsy was the minor VI
o married daughter of Mrs. Zebley VT
Il has since become the wife of the d.
i fendant. John G. Wahl.
b On the ground that the wife shou
Is have boen joined in the action Villa
J. S. IIilles asked the court to i7stru
l. tie jury to rsnder verdict for the d
n PENDANT. Tbs motion was opposed
g Robert A dsir, attorney for the plaintiff
10 The court so instructed the jury aud
n verdict was rendered in accordance vii
10 the instructions.
IN A jury was drawn at the morning SC
" sion TO Try the case OF Frank Torrey '
ii j.. Edward Addicks, which is to
Or heard on Friday. Torrey sues for pI
q for his services as captain OF the vac
n Now Then.
i Further court proceedings on Attn page.l
}