Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-12-20
PUSEY 6 JONES co. WIN.
Verdict for Full Amount Against A. p
Dodge-Danforth vs.. Hertel a. Co.


Dodge-Danforth vs.. Hertel a. Co.
Charles M. Curtis for the plaintiff,
and Herbert II. Ward for the de-
PENDANTS, addressed the Superior Court
Jury in the Harper G. Co. VS.. Baird's
| administrators Thursday afternoon. The
| closing arguments were made Friday
morning, by Horace q. Knowles, for the
defendants, and Col. BENJAMIN Nields,
for the plaintiff. The amount involved
is s1,611.97 with interest from June,
1898. Col. Nields used a blackboard
| The case Of James f. Lawles5' ad-
ministrator ys. the Pusey & Jones Co.,
was reported settled. Lawless lost his
| life on account of the breaking of a
| part Of derrick. The case was tried
some time ago, but the jury disagreed.
Hilles and Joslyn represented the plain
| tiff and Ponder, the defendant
Publication was ordered in the di-
vorce cases Of Mabelle l.. Caulk vs..
Fletcher Caulk and Mary O. Collins
| VS.. William B. Collins. f. r. Cochran,
Jr., represented the complainant in
each case. In each the return Of the
commissioner favors divorce.
With the defendant absent and bis
| whereabouts uncertain, the suit Of the
| Pnsey & Jones 20. vs.. Arthur p. Dodge
was put on trial in the Superior Court
Monday morning. Col. Benjamin Nields
| represents the plaintiff and George
Lodge the defendant. Mr.. Lodge an
| nounced that in justice to himself and
his client, he would have to say that
| bis client was non est, and In his alb
sence could not ascertain where his wit
nesses were. Under the circumstances
he felt that he would not be able to
make as perfect a defence as he would
desire.
Dodge was interested in the Kinetic
| motor, from which were hoped great
things. He had the Pusey & Jones Co.
make some machinery for use in the
device, and the cost thereof was
81, ,53l. 40. or that amount Dodge and
the kinetic Motor Co., has paid $500,
leaving balance of S73l.a9, which is
the amount sued for.
1t appears that the machinery fur
nished was in accordance with the
plans, but that the motor did not work
| when it was installed.
Samuel @. Biddle, secretary ard di-
rector of the Pusey & Jones Co., w. W.
Hoopes, receiving and entry clerk in
the shipping department, and George
| Messick, assistant manager, we're on
the stand. They testified to the con-
tract and its fulfilment by the COM
pany.
The casa Of Frank II. Thomas VS.. the
Pennsylvania Railroad Co., not being
ready for trial on account of argument
last Saturday on demurrer, was con.
tinued until next term. This is the 18th
continuance for this case, which was
| begun at the November term, 1897.
| Thomas is represented by Anthony
| Higgins; the railroad by Ward g. Gray.
| Between 5000 and $500 Is involved, the
suit for damages from the railroad for
non delivery of carload Of peaches
within the alleged specified time.
The case of Campbell VS.. the p, W.
& b. railroad was continued until the
next term.
In the case of the Big Bed State
Quarry Co. vs.. Frank A. Mitchell, Mr..
Mitchell asked for continuance on the
ground that papers important to his
defence were burned in tho recent fire
at his place. A continuance was
granted with a peremptory rule for trial
at the February term.
The case of che Pusey d Jones Go. vs..
Arthur Z. Dodge went to Superior Court
jury Tuesday on the. charge of Judge
turned, that amount including the claim of
S731.49, with interest, which was for ma
chinery furnished for the Kinetic motor.
| A jury was drawn to try the case of N.
| b. Danforth VS.. Paul Isenschmid and Emil
Hertel. trading as Hertel & Co. William
$. Hilles represented Danforth and j. W.
| Ponder John G. Gray and S. s. Adams,
Jr., represented the defendants. The claim
| is for goods furnished to the amount of
$285. II, with interest from November 14th,
1899, making total of S303.64, This is the
last case for trial before the general jury.
| There are several inauistions yet to be
held.
In the Danforth case, Mr.. Isenschmid
had filed an, affidavit alleging that he was
not connected with the firm in the time in
| which the goods were furnished.
The witnesses for the plaintiff were Mr..
Danforth and Frank j. Williams, who
testified to the sale of the goods. The wit
nesses for the defence were the Rev. Paul
Isenschmid, one of the defendants, and his
son, Samuel Isenschmid. Il was not
claimed that the goods were not bought
and delivered but that the Rev. Mr.. Isen-
schmid was not liable for the debt. He
testified that he was not in the firm when
| the bill was contracted and an agreement
| was put into evidence corroborhting this
| statement.
The case of James Graney VS.. the J.
Morton Poole Co.,. which was to have been
tried before special jury Tuesday, will not
be tried, judgment for costs being entered
in favor of the defendant. q. Il. Ward
represented Graney and ]. Fl. Whiteman
the J. Morton Poole Go.
On the application of Levi O. Bird, who
is suffering with a cold in one of his eyes,
the court continued the case of Cahill's
administrator VS.. the Jessup q Moore Paper
90. until next term.