Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-10-05
CLOSEOF COUNTY COURTS
Adjournment Of September Term Friday
Afternoon.
TWO LIQUOR PLACES REFUSED
Three Other Applications Had
Been Withdrawn.
THREE DEGREES OF DIVORCE GRANTED

Superior Court, Thursday, in his argu-
ment in reply to the quo wairanto APP
plication brought against the Delaware
Electric Railway Co., on the relation
of Attorney General Robert G. White.
Mr.. Higgins was referring to the news
paper stories which told Of the electric
railway quarrel in Kent county between
the Delaware Electric Railway Co.,
tMr. Hawkins company aud the Del
aware General Electric Railway Go.
tMr. Whites company. In the con-
test for the enjoyment Of franchises,
said Mr.. Higgins, John ID. Hawkins
seemed to be at the head Of the first
company, and in the language of the
fox chase, the leading dog in the other
pack was the attorney general in full
cry. Then the laugh came in, And
yet" added Mr.. Higgins, the ire
mendous power of the State is invited
at your honors' hands IN the interest
Of one against the other
This vas the day for the return of
the rule secured Monday week Oh Joseph
Hancock, Franklin Temple, William
w. Powers, Theodore Townsend, Henry
Reiohardt, John D. Hawkins, Z. Il.
Hancock, ii. NJ Wilkinson and l.. p.
Campbell of the Delaware Electric
Railway to show cause why an infor-
nation IN the nature of q writ of quo
warranto should not be filed. their use
OF liberties, privileges and franchises
in Kent county being questioned.
Service has been secured on Treasurer
William w. Powers of Philadelphia,
John u. Hawkins and DIR. Howard ".
Wilkinson of Dover and L. P. Camp
bell of Woodland Beach. who were In
court. They were represented by Will
liam s. Hilles and Anthony Higgins,
who announced that they appeared only
in this application.
Henry Ridgely, Jr., Of Dover and
Attorney General White supported the
application for quo warranto They
held that the burden was on the other
parties to show that they had the rights
they have assumed to exercise: but
Messrs. Higgins and Hilles held that
the burden was On the applicants to
show that the defendants did not have
the rights. The court held that the
applicants must open.
Mr.. Ridgely thereupon opened and
held that the information filed should
be taken as true by the court, as it had
been filed by the attorney. general.
MIR. Hilles, for the defendants, stated
that while quo warranto is perfectly
plain, yet when the application is made
by the State at the relation of the at
torney1general different condition ex-
lists from that which prevails when the
relation is that Of private individual.
There is no reported case in this State
involving the question before the court.
Where the attorney general files an in
formation such as this. IL comes with
great deal Of solemnity, a great
deal more solemnity than it would at
the relation of private individual.
But the makers Of the Constitution
have seen fit to hedge around the pow
ers of the attorney general in such
matters as this. There must be gen
eral statutory direction to file such an
information or there must be particu-
lar direction by the Legislature in o
particular case. Article 9, section l,
of the Constitution was cited in this
connection. The attorney general rep
resents the legislative department only
to the extent OF his authority TO repre-
sent IL by law. There is no such Law
and we submit that your honors can.
not issue in the name OF the'attorney-
general this writ. 1i ia.0
make no criticism of my friends
on the other side" continued Mr..
Hilles, land both know me we'll enough
to know that would not make crit
cisin Of either OF them ard / do not in
tend to make rany such criticism; but
it is well known to your honors thT rough
the public prints and otherwise thai
both of the gentlemen who appear il
this case have already appeared in al
the litigation that has taken place in
Kent county by rival organization t.
this. i ask that the Office of the attor
ney-general Of this State shall not b,
allowed to be used by your honors fol
one corporation as against another.''
Mr.. Hilles held that the information
alleged no act in New Castle count.
and that therefore this court had u
jurisdiction. Should writ issue,
motion would be made to quash on thu
ground Of lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Higgins discussed the principle
involved. The Delaware electric rail
way has all the capital required anc
does not want to be delayed.
Mr.. Ridgeiy made brilliant exposi
tion OF law in behalf OF the applica
ton, arguing that this court has iuris
diction,
Attorney Genera.lWEite said that tn
application was made here to save tim
and they took the risk on the question
of jurisdiction. They knew the Ken
court had jurisdiction.
AS for his connection with the appli
cation he considered that he woul
have been recreant to his duty IL h
had not obeyed the behest to make tn
attempt to have the charter In questio
revoked. WIZ
Mr.. Hilles stated that quo warrant
would hurt the railway company. II
remarked that the case had bee
argued in the papers, and in behalf Q
the other side.
Decision was reserved.
R COST OF CRIMINAL COURT.
The cost of tho criminal courts OF tb
September term aggregated abou
81, 900. For the grand jury, the count
paid s346. 80; the regular panel Of peti
jurors, S712.5S; additional inrors Il
Oyer and Terminer Court, SlSS. 6S; wi
ness fees, 81, 1889. Some witness fee
are yet to be paid. 3ian Essp po
The Septennber term Of courts close
Friday. That morning the first thin
done was the opening of Oyer and Te
miner Court, and some wondered whit
was to be done In that court. Immed
ately after its opening, it was adjourn
ed without day. &aAs7a A-
The General Sessions Court gave
hearing in the matter Of liquor iicen'
applications which were opposed. III
applications of Dennis Doughert,
Charles e.. Barrett, ST. Ge6rses, ha
been Withdrawn. ~ 's!lia3i
William s. Prickett, who rerresente
the Law and Order Society, announce
that the opposition to William j. Nj
earthly, Fourth and Lombard street
was withdrawn The grand jury ha
ignored IL bill AGAINST Mnfjartitv mn