Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-03-16
IssOnAyoE coMpAsr WINS.
Superior Court Jury Gives 1t n Verdict
Another Wheat Case. .f.

Co. of Philadelphia VS.. John A. Lengel |
returned verdict yesterday week
in favor Of the plaintiff for sl96. 81, the
full amount of the claim. At the
morning session the cases Of the same
plaintiff against Hart q Bro. and s. G.
Simmons ~ Bro, which involve the
same question OF liability for assess
ments, had boon continued until the
May term.
The case of Michael vollt VS.. Samuel
Il. Cunningham, involving the value
of 80 bushels of wheat, was put on trial
at Thursday mornings session,
John II. Rodney represented the
plaintiff, and Harry Emmons, the do
PENDANT. Volls was . tenant on the
Jordan farm in Christiana hundred,
there in harvest time to thresh his
crop Of wheat. Cunningham, who then
had the farm, held that he was entitled
to some of tho wheat, claiming that
Volk had put more land in wheat than
he should. Volk testified that Cum
ningham broke the threshing machine,
which was being operated by Everett
Hollingsworth. Tho wheat was after
wards replevined. Volk claimed that 1t
was worth N cents bushel.
Court adjourned until 2.30 p. M.
In the wheat replevin case of Michael
Volk ys. Samuel j.. Cunningham, u
Superior Court jury Thursday after
noon returned verdict for $24. "a in
favor of the plaintiff.
The case Of the State Of Delaware,
upon the relation of the road commits
sioners of New Castle hundred vs.. the
Mayor and Council of New Castle, was
continued Friday until the May term.
jury was drawn to try The case Of
John Greer VS.. the Arlington Mills
Manufacturing Co., Greer seeking to
recover 81, 200 which he claims as
salary. He is represented by Hartman
and Knowles. Tho company is repre-
seated by Levi G. Bird and A. e, San
born. The plaintiff was in the employ
of the company from 1886 to 1896. He
made his claim on the basis Of $5,000.a
year salary.
Somerfield Baldwin, vice president
of the company. and Andrew b. Jones
testified for the defence. The company
made money in 1895, but lost in 1893,
1894 and 1896.
Thirty three applicants for license to
sell liquor at old places have had their
applications approved by the Court of
General Sessions. In the case of Charles
III. Herdman, the only new applicant
remaining to the February term, u
hearing has not yet been held
In the Superior Court on Monday.
the trial of the case of Henry Tully's
administrator VS.. the Philadelphia,
Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Co.
was postponed until afternoon, and tho
speeches to the jury were made in the
case of John Greer VS.. tho Arlington
Mills Manufacturing Co., in which
| Hartman IL Knowles represent the
plaintiff and Bird and Sauborn the de-
| PENDANT
In the suit of John Greer VS.. the
| Arlington Mills Manufacturing Co. a
Superior Court jury Monday after
noon returned verdict in favor of the
defendant. Greer claimed $1,000 as
salary. He was represented by Hartman
| g. Knowles, and the defendant COM
pany was represented by Bird &
| Sanborn. KEW
The first special jury trial of the
| term was begun Monday afternoon, it
being the case of Thomas j. Tully,
administrator of Henry Tully vs.. the
Philadelphia, Wilmington & Balti-
more Railroad Co., for $40, 600 damages
for the death of young FULLY, who was
run over on the Brandywine branch at
| Buena Vista street, August 25th, 1896.
David T. and Josiah Marvel repro.
scented the plaintiff and III. II. Ward
and Andrew G. Gray the defendant.
the scene of the accident, and several
photographs, which were admitted in
evidence.
Thomas Tully, aged 10 years., a
brother of the boy who was killed,
testified that on tho day in question
he was picking coal with his brother
and some other boys. His brother was
on the side of coal car when box
car struck it and Henry was thrown of
and run over The boy was Eoarly cut
in two and died instantly.
Harry Wiltoank, another of the boys,
told a similar story.
John Grosscup, an engineer at Foit
Delaware, who was in the vicinity Of
the accident and Henry w. Harris were
on the stand this morning. The latter
was asked "What was tho usage and
custom of this defendant railroad com.
pany and of boys congreeating at this
locality as to the use of empty coal anc
other cars standing upon tho side
tracks there This question was OBJ
jected to upon tho part Of counsel fol
the defence on the ground that it was
irrelevant. Tho argument on tho ques
tion occupied an hour or more.
Superior Court yesterday directed {
nonsuit to be entered in the case o.
Henry Tully's administration vs.. the
Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore
Railroad Co. The plaintiff declined tx
accept the nonsuit, whereupon tn,
court directed tho jury to bring in I
verdict for the defendant. This refusa
to accept tho nonsuit on the part o
the plaintiff was done in order tina
there may be entered judgment upor
which " writ of error. can be taken
! Tho granting Of nonsuit indicates
that If all the evidence were true /
was not sufficient to found an action.
The court next took up tho trial o
the case Of John Weldon, an infant, b.
his next friend, William Weldon, VS.
the p, W. & B. Railroad Co., al
action for $40, 600 for injuries sustainct
Franklin BroclSson and Lewis q. Van
aeerift represent tho plaintiff and Fl
Ii. Ward and Andrew G. Gray, TIN
defendant.
w. A. KINNEY submitted plot O
tho scene of the accident. Youn,
Weldon testified as to the accident
He alleged that it occurred while h
was crossing the track between freigh
cars, a space having been broken il
J the train. An engine showed the Gar
together and he was caught, hi
shoulder being crushed. The plaintiff
, alleges that the company did not war.
him OF the danger. H.
, Bought by Congressman Smith.
Cnon, Hill MI Marpb Tho ,an