The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1900-10-05
THE COURT
Ex-Mayor Ffshblate's suit for 100000
Damages In the Hands of the Jury.
1t VIII Evidently be a MistriaI-The
Jury Out All Night.

Damages In the Hands of the Jury.
1t VIII Evidently be a M~istrial-The
Jury Out All Night.
Pursuant to adjournment for recess
on Monday afternoon, the superior
court met yesterday at $50 a m, His
Honor Judge Fred Moore on the
bench.
Sheriff MacRae returned the follow
ing as the jurors summoned for the
day: Jacob L.. Solomon, Samuel Bear,
ST., Benjamin Hollis, j. O. Powers,
"A. b. Lynch, Henry Newman, Ed.
OrrelI, Thomas GLADDEN., w. w. Halla-
day. Not found, Alonzo Rowe, Lee
Downing, and t. J.. Rivenbark. The
following were excused for the day:
Jacob L. Solomon, Samuel Bear. ST.,
and w. w. Halliday. The following
were excused from those drawn for the
week: William Blanks and G. r.. An
derson-
Marden Bethany, Jr. Esq, appeared
before the bar and exhibited his license
from the chief and associate justices
of the supreme court of North Carroll
ma, emitting him to practice as an at
torney and counsellor at law in the
several courts of this state, and p
motion of Eugene s. Martin, Esq, the
oath required by law to be admins
tered to members of the bar were adj
miniStered to Mr.. Bellamy by Mr.. Mar
tin.
The suit of s. H. Fishblate VS.. Wal
lerstein, Klee & Co, was resumed.
Judge Moore had the testimony read
over to the jury by Miss Stella Shrier
the stenOgrapher, and tine reading was
completed at 6 p. m. Judge Moore
then occupied an hour III charging the
jury on the points of law involved. AT
z p. IN. the jury was given the case.
The following issues were submitted
to the jury upon which 10 pass in
making UP their verdict:
1. Was the warrant of attachment
in the case of Wallerstein & Klee
against s. H. Fishblate wrongfully
sued out?
2. Was the warrant of attachment
in the case of Wallerstein & Klee VS..
S. H. FiShblate sued out m~aliclously
and without probable cause?
3. What actual damage, if any, has
the plaintiff sustained by reason of
the wrongful issuing OF said warrant
of attachment?
4. What punitive damage, if any, is
the plaintiff entitled to receive?
5. Did the sheriff make his levy be-
fore the filing of the deed OF assign
ment to A. Ct. Ricaud, trustee, dor re-
~gistratiOn?
At a late hour last night the jury
was still out, having failed to reach a
conclusion.
The court took a recess till $50
O'Clock this morning.
The jury in suit of EX-Mayor s..
H. hbla VS.. Wallerstine & klee,
clothiers of New York, after taking
supper at the orion on Tuesday even
ing, were escorted pack to the court
harrca in ahaT-ra of DpnIITU Sheriff r.
Z. Daniels. AT 500 p. IN. they. were
locked up in the court room to make
I'D their verdict. They went over the
testimony and considered the issues
out could not agree Colonel John d.
Taylor. the clerk of the court remain
ed at the court house till 10 p. m, in
order to receive their verdict if they
could come to an agreement, but as
there was no probability of a conclu-
sion, the jury advised him 70 go home
and not wait for a verdict. He then
left the jury to spend the night in the
court room.
The jury tried to arrive at a verdrct,
but as they could not agree at a late
hour they made themselves as COM
Portable as possible 50 as TO get WndI
sleep they could.
The jury was hung" and We're still
apart yesterday morning Deputy
Sheriff Daniels remained with them
and escorted them to breakfast at the
orion yesterday
After returning to the court house
the Jury went into the jury room and
again discussed the evidence and the
issues. Meanwhile the court met at
$50 a. m. Judge Fred Moore presid-
ing The court proceeded with its bus
mess. and disposed of several cases on
the
About 1910 p. m. the jury came into
court and returned a verdict. AS Ihe
IL -A% n1lnr indigo Moore
sent the Jury back to put its verdict
in proper shape. In a short while the
Jury again came in with a verdict, and
again it was sent back to une jury
room to correct the verdict. 1t came
in finally and rendered its Verdlct on
the issues as follows:
L WAS the warrant of attachment
in the case of WallerStein & klee
against S. H. Fishblate
sued out? Answer, yes"
9. Was the warrant OF attacnment
in the case of Wallerstein & klee VS.
9 III. shbla sued out maliciouSly
and without probable cause! Answer
no"
8. What actual damage, if any, has
the plaintiff sustained by reason OF
the wrongful issuing of said warrant
of attachment? Answer, one cent:
f. What punitive damage, If any, Is
the plaintiff entitled TO receive! All
swer, none"
5 Did the sheriff make his levy be-
fore the filing of n deed of assign
ment to A. G. Ricaud, trustee, Tor re-
E~istration? Answer, mo"
Il. K. Bryan, Esq, OF counsel TOT
the Dlaintiff, made a motion for a new
first issue mo-" so it was not necessary
erred in its charge to the jury. Judge
Moore announced that he would later
hear argument from counse on pne
motion and it is probable that the
ynrxson will be argued today
According to the verdict Of the Jury
the defendants, Wallerstein & klee,
had no ground for taking out the al
tachment against Mr.. Ffshblate In 1857,
and the inference follows that ne was
solvent and able to pay MS oep.s a.
tba time the attachment was levied.
However, under the Judges charge 10
The Jury, as he understood n law, ne