Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-12-08
supEnIon cornf.


I
McGowen, to recover for injuries al
legged to have been sustained by Mrs.
Friedman who claims to have been
bitten by McGowen's dog, all the evil
denee was put in yesterday week. After
Howell s. England had closed for the
plaintiff, Walter II. Hayes, for the de,
PENDANT, moved for q non-suit, on the
ground that under the statute, the suit
should have been brought within one
year after the injury was inflicted,
whereas 1t was not brought until ID
months of. the accident, and on the
ground that McGowen was not shown
to have had knowledge that his dog
was vicious The court, however, de-
MED his motion for non-suit.
On Thursday, Mr.. England and Mr..
Hayes addressed the court on the |
prayers which they submitted.
The attorneys closed their discussion |
Of the prayers about II o'clock and
Mr.. England opened to the jury. He |
asked for verdict for the plaintiffs, |
but pared their figures from the claim
of 81, 900 down to request for $500.
The appeal case of Heinel & Co. VS..
the Wilmington Malleable Iron 90.
was discontinued. Judgment for the
defendant below was granted in the
case OF W. II. Mcguire Il Co., d. b. a.,
vs.. Elwood Garrett, p. b. r.
Continuance until the next term was
granted in the cases OF Edmund p.
Moody, use Of Ralph G. Lupton VS..
Herbert N. Fell, and James A. Pierce
VS.. George H. Huber.
The jury in the damage suit OF
Morris Friedman and wife against
John McGowen, in the Superior Court,
par1spf nrl,,,rc1ny of
in favor of the defendant. At the open
ing of court in the afternoon, David L.
Marvel addressed the jury in behalf of
| the defendant and Howell S. England
followed with the closing speech for
| the plaintiffs.
After the jury had been out about an
hour it sent word to the court for in
structions concerning actual and con-
structive knowledge 1t wanted to
know II verdict could be given for
| the plaintiffs If the jury did not believe
that McGowen knew his dog was
vicious. The court said it could not,
| and few minutes later. verdict was
returned in favor of tho defendant.
Herbert III. Ward and Lewis G. Van
| degrift asked that writ of alternative
mandamus be issued to show cause why
the pilot commissioners should not
place the name of VIM. S. Edwards, Jr.,
on their books. Edwards is an appren-
tice and he seeks to have the date Of
his apprenticeship, which he alleges
began in 1892, placed on the books,
which show that his apprenticeship
began in 1860. The rule was made re-
turnable on December 10th.
Upon the application of Francis II.
Hoffecker, the court set aside the de-
fective deed Of the property owned by
John A. Lengel at Fifth and du Pont
streets. 1t was sold in 1853 by Abram
Cannon, sheriff. This is the second
case of its kind which has come before
the court in so years.
The trial of the case of Arson A..
Maher VS.. DIR. Harry @. Moore was
!, today. Mr.. Maher was represented by
Peter L. Cooper, Jr., and DIR. Moore
by William S. Hilles. 1t is an action
to recover on promissory note for
$3.50. so, dated December 9th, 1897,
given by DIR. Moore to Robert A. Var
Buren,, a life insurance agent, which
came into the possession of Mr.. Maher
The plaintiff is the general agent il
Philadelphia of the Equitable Life In
surance Co. OF New York, this cit,
1 being included in his district. Var
: Buren, was one of his agents. Mr.
q Cooper maintained that Mr.. Maher has
received the note in good faith for
consideration and that it should b.
paid. Mr.. Maher testified that he neve
. gave Van Buren, authority to accep
It notes for premiums.
n Mr.. Hilles, in opening, declared tina
a this was one Of the cases in which
life insurance company seeks to repudi
!, ate the acts of its agent for its owl
U benefit.
IS It appeared from the testimony @
N DIR Moore that Van Buren, had com
to him and solicited life insurance bu
he had said he could not afford to tax
a policy. Van Buren, told him tina
l. this agency was anxious to increase il
ar amount of insurance in the city {
Wilmington and that if he would TAX
= without paying any premium the frs
y year. DIR. Moore consented to this
is When Van Buren, delivered the polio
is he told Moore that he was short in HI
~ accounts with tho company and askc
a. him TO loan him his note Tor $3.50. s.
ne promising that he Wan BUREN, woul
or take care of it when it became due an
Moore would not have to pay it.
The amount of tho note was the SAN
as the amount of the premium, $3.50. s.
After the attorneys had argued
behalf of their respective clients, A
sociate Justice Spruance delivered IL
a.- charge to the jury. He said 1T was f
the jury 10 consider whether DIR. Moo
nd had a right to presume that the cor
"a pany was giving away life insuran
i'm policies. Had he died within q ye
as the company would have paid Il
I'm policy.
Suppose DR.. Moore had given II
at note as an accommodation to VI
ed Buren,, on the represeptation that
q would not have to pay it. then
to would not have to pay 1t, if Van Bur-
he should sue for it. But is Moore r
led leased from responsibility when thi
led party gets the note9
ger As to agents, the third party may Q
he sumo that one has all authoriti
ate within his general duties. but he mt
not collide with the agent to do thin
not allowed by the company. 1t is
be considered whether DIR. Moore h
a right to receive the policy as
tie, gratuity. If the note was merely as
accommodation to Van Buren, it "
or in no way connected with his duties
Ill an agent and will not bind Mr.. Nah
ind the company or anybody else uni
His knowledge of that is brought home.
md Mr.. Hilles asked leave to note an
did ception to the charge Of the court.
l. DR.. Horace Jacques, who had kno
the both Van Buren, and Moore, testif
use that he did not know where Van Bui
his WAS.
was The jury returned verdict Fril