Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-09-27

Oarlin with bundle and arrested him.
Rafferty, saw the account in the paper
and identified the overalls as his. They
had been taken from in front Of his
store at No. 217 King street. L. Irving
Handy appeared for Uarlin.
Officer Shields said that Carlin ad-
mitted the overalfs were not his, but
said they were given him.
Carlin's story was that the overallls
were handed him by two men to sell
and he took them on the understanding
that they were all right. Carlin ad-
mitted that he had been convicted of
stealing corn from Hart & Bro.
Charles Dougherty testified to seeing
two boys give Carlin bundle.
had been convicted twios
of larceny.
The case was still in progress when a
recess was taken until 9 o'clock.
PETITION FOR A ROAD.
A petition has been presented to the
Court for new public road in Mill
Creek hundred, to run from the road
between Corner Ketrh and that leading
to Mill Creek Meetinghouse to road
that passes North Star. The proposed
road will be about a mile long. l..
Irving Handy represents the petitioners
for the road. Benjamin Nields repre-
sents some of the property owners who
are resisting the laying out of the road.
The court will select Com mmiBsioners to
lay out the road from lists submitted
by the two attorneys.
These sentences were imposed at
Friday afternoons session of General
Sessions Court: Frank Luxe, colored,
acting improperly towards a colored
girl, two months; Charles Hess, steal
ing wire from the Oxy- Hydrogen 90. +,
10 lashes, one year; Theodore Carlin,
stealing overalls from Michael Rafferty,,
10 lashes, six months: James Sparks,
colored, stealing shoes from Mrs. Mary
Fennessey, 10 lashes, six months.
In the Sparks case the State was
represented by Charles Curley, who
was just admitted to the bar this term.
Mr.. Curley made a very good i'm
preston. He called Mrs. Fem ICY
and Officer John Sherry to the stand
and brought out the POINTS in the case
admirably.
l.. Irving Handy, counsel for William
T. Little, asked the General Sessions
Court Saturda. to go into hear
ing of the facts under which, it is
claimed, Little is wanted elsewhere.
Little was produced under a writ OF
habeas corpus. Mr.. Handy held that
the jurisdiction of Justice of the
peace with reference to fugitive from
Justice must depend upon an affidavit
setting forth that the person wanted
is in the county. Tho attorney de
cared that an affidavit of State De-
teotive Bernard j. McVey was de-
fective. He drew attention to the fact
that the warrant issued by Magistrate
Sasse was dated September 2lst,
whereas be was arrested on the 18th.
But the warrant of Magistrate Rocker
sperger of Philadelphia for Edward
Maloney, alleged to DE Little, is Of
earlier date.
The court decided that the papers
were insufficient to hold Little for the
Pennsylvania authorities.
In order to SECURE his rearrest, Mr..
Cooper took the Daley commitment
McVey when Mr.. Handy objected say
ing the paper belonged to him. Nj.
MoVey was much put out that he
could not hold the prisoner.
After q conference between the at
torneys, it was agreed that Little
would go to Philadelphia without
papers.
The court turned its attention tc
several non support cases.
Mary Donahce tod the court she
was married to John Donahoe in 1886
and he left hor in 1894. Donahoe sale
he worked Oh a farm and made $3.50 a
year and his board 1t was brought
out by j. Frank Biggs, attorney for
Donahoe, that Donahoe was charged
with wilful desertion, crimina
offence, whereas he was being tried fol
non-support. On account OF the error,
Donahoe was discharged.
The non Support case of the State vs..
William Ii. Mccormick was dropped,
al Mccormick and his wife are living
together.
Hannah NJ. Cloud told the court thai
her husband was supporting her anc
the case against him was dropped.
Other non-support cases were dis.
posed of as follows: State VS.. Charlie:
Lee, John L. Craven, William +. For
rest and John II. Ross, dismissed
George r. Hewlett, to pay his wife,
Kate Hewlett, s12 month; William
Lowler, continued to November tenn,
meanwhile he must support his two
children at their glandmother's, Martha
V. Williams.
Levi @. Bird asked for a ruling on {
novel point. Mary Wood, who was
divorced in 1888, is about to sell somt
property; when the search OF the
records was made, it was found thai
the decree of divocre did not contain
the initial Of the judge, and the ques
tion was raised, therefore, as to The
validity of the paper. The court rulec
that in 1888, it was not the practice o.
tire court 10 initial DEGREES, and tha
the paper was valid.
A novel question was raised by
petitions of the Citizens Leagut
against the use Of two bars at James
McCormick's hotel, Front and Market
streets, and Edward Gipp's place, the
Delaware House, No. 5l3 Market street.
William S. PrickRtt and Charles NJ.
Curtis appeared for the league; Peter
l.. Cooper, DR., for Mccormick anc
Walter ii. Hayes, for Gipp.
Hayes and Cooper moved for the dis
missal of the petitions on the g;ouuc
that no violation of the law was
alleged.
Mr.. Cooper argued that the law made
no restriction as to whether more thar
one bar could be kept, The tenant ol
occupant had right to sell anywhere
in his place of business, provided tht
liquor be drunk on the premises. He
remarked also that it has been thu
practice Of various hotels to have twc
bars for years, and down the State
separate bars are run by the SAME
hotel.
Mr.. Prickett held that the spirit o.
the law is that there be only one bai
at a place. Mr.. Curtis argued that tht
law does not permit the use of tive