Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-09-14


The September terms Of Court of
Chancery and Orphans Court were
opened Monday Chancellor John
r. Nicholson conducted business in the
former, and Associate Justice William
@. SErunnce in the latter.
The Chancellor announced a new rule
in Court of Chancery regulating the
admission of solicitors to that court.
1t consisted of the appointment OF
standing board OF examiners by whom
it is necessary for an applicant to be
passed, in lieu of the present system OF
appointing counsel for examining each
applicant. The members of the board
of Chancery examiners named by the
Chancellor are the gentlemen oonsti-
tuting the existing board OF examiners
of law students for the law courts,
namely Benjamin Nields, II. Fl. Ward,
John Biggs, William S. Hilles and "A.
b. Cooper. /.
III the review of the Chancery trial
list, numerous continuances were
granted. In the case of the Equitable
Guarantee and Trust Co. VS.. John p.
Donahoe, collector a motion to dismiss
the bill on the ground of lack of juris-
diction, will first be argued. This is
the case which involves the constitu-
tionality of the Adams tax law. Will
| lard Salisbury, who represents the
trust company, announced that Anthony
| Higgins may be associated, in behalf
of parties in interest. The respondent
I is represented by Potter L. Cooper, Jr.,
for the State; Henry @. Conrad for the
city, and John Ii. Rodney for the
| county.
In the cases OF Gertrude Ii. Wilson,
] ~ al nj nd
Samuel M. Knox, ct al, John I'll. Rod
ney was appointed commissioner to take
testimony in place of Samuel A. Macal-
| lister, on account of his absence from
the city.
The case of Sarah b. Conrow VS..
Sarah B. Conrow, ct al, which has
been before the court since 1889, is
now reported as affected by litigation
| in Philadelphia. An issue to the Su-
perior Court is 10 be framed in the
case Of Maggie M. Jamison vs. James
III. s. Gam.
Settlement is to be reached in the
cases Of Eliza Harris VS.. the Mayor and
| Council CT Wilmington; Alfred l..
Ainscow VS.. George W. Ainsoow, et al,
| upon payment OF costs) Joseph III.
Gooding VS.. Mayor and Council tcostsl !,
Edwin P. Williamson and Nicholas
Spieles VS.. the Gordon Heights Railway
Co., (costs).
Security for costs was asked for in
the case Of Edward g. Cook VS.. Albert
W. Smith. Argument is TO be heard
| October 4th.
In Orphans Court, George W. Wig
ellsworth, administrator OF John II.
Wiggesworth, and Sarah Fl. Taylor,
administrators of James I, Taylor,
| made returns of sales, which we're con-
| firmed.
Thomas S. Anderson, administrator
of Joshua j. Davis, was granted per-
mission to sell real estate belonging to
the estate.
The injunction case of Garrett &
| Barr VS.. John McFarlan was argued
before Chancellor Nicholson, by Howell
S. England for compliments and Lii
burne Chandler, for the respondent,
| Monday afternoon and Tuesday. Garrett
& Barr, morocco manufacturers, of No.
312-320 East Second street, seek to have
McFarlan, who owns the property ad-
| joining, restrained from erecting a
building. They claim that if the
| building is erected it will shut out
| light and air from their factory, max
ing it impossible for them to conduct
their business, which gives employ
ment to SO or 100 men and aggregates
$500, 600 a year.
The east wall of the house would be
two feet six inches from the factory.
Mr.. England held that the windows on
that side of the factory were in the
eyes of the law ancient Ones" having
been in use for long period of years,
and could not be lawfully closed up so
as to interfere with the business OF the
factory.
Mr.. Chandler held that the doctrine
Of 'ancient lights" had no standing in
this State; but it had been exploded in
decision of Chancellor Salisbury.
The attorney said that the factory was
put two feet back, and that that show
ed no right to light and air over McFar-
lan's property.
Decision was reserved.
A decree by agreement was entered
IN the case of William G. Whlteley,
ct al, VS.. the Kent Iron and Hardware
Co., ct al.
Argument was begun in Chancery
Court Tuesday afternoon on motion
to dismiss in the case of Margaret II.
Bringhurst VS.. A. d. Warner, the
Union National Bank and the National
Bank of Delaware. Willard Salisbury
represents the complainant, and Charles
q. Rumford, Benjamin Nields and
Hoffecker Il IIoffeckef, the respondents.
Refused a Pardon.
a H..