Evening journal., 1901-01-07
50 Court POStpOReS Action in
Chambers Case
COURT IN BANG IN SESSION
Question OF COHSiitutiOnaliiy Of Tax
Law Postponed for Argumen!
Until January a

Commissions OF Herbert II. Ward.
winfield 3. Quigley and Frank J..
Speahman, as attorney-genoral. clerk
OF the peace and prothonotary respec-
lively. We're read at % session OF Cen
eial Sessions Court held this morning.
The commissions of Messrs Ward and
Speakman were read by Mr.. Ouigley.
and that of the clerk of the peace by
Mr.. Speal1man. The court greeted the
new officials and hoped that all would
have profitable as well as pleasant as
sociation.
In Superior Court Chief Justice Lore
handed down an opinion sustaining the
dcmurrers by Anthony Higgins in the
case OF Marty II. Thomas VS.. the r., w.
B. Railroad Company, whertupon Mr..
Higgins asked that judgment respond
eat auster be entered. Andrew G. Gray
represents the defendant company
Judgment for want of appearance
was allowed the plaintiffs IN the case
of the Equitable Guarantee and Trust
Company administrators. VS.. David r.
Bradford. administrator.
Anthony Higgins, representing the
plaintiffs In the case OF John Pritchard
casual eiector, VS.. Henry Henderson.
obtained a rule on the defendants for
security for costs. Charles B. Evans
and J.. Harvey Whiteman represent
the defendants.
TAX CASES CONTINUED.
The suits OF Eugene M. sayers VS.
the p, w. a. B. Railroad Company.
Wilmington and Northern Railroad
Company and the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company. to recover taxes
levied on road beds. poles and other
property Of the companies, went over
until January "a The cases will be
heard by the court In banc. They in
volve the validity Of the law under
Yhich the city levied the additional
ANes on the companies. About s33. 900
Is inyolyed. Robert G. Hartman repre-
sents the city.
WANTS DIVORCE BUT HAS NO
MONEY.
An action for divorce brought by
Frank H. Chambers vs. Emma l..
Chambers, disclosed a condition OF
finances on the part of the complain
ant because Of which the court refused
to order the case to trial. j. Harvey
Whlteman represents the complains
ant. For the respondent l.. Irving
Handy filed an order on the complain
ant, commanding him 20 furnish s1OO
for the defense Of the action and S4 a
week alimOny pending trial. To defeat
this motion Mr. Whiteman brought out
the testimony that Chambers was
without employment; that his earning
capacity was not such as would allow
him TO make such large payments, and
that prospects of future employment
were not favorable. Upon learning this
information Mr.. Handy informed the
court that he would consent to the re-
/ ductiOn OF the expense fund TO $50 and
the rate of alimony TO SO per week.
Should the complainant bs unable to
enter into an order TO this effect Mr..
Handy thought the suit should be
abated. The status OF the case was so
unusual that the court refused to make
any order preferring to wait until such
time as Chambers obtains employment.
This phase of the suit having been
disposed of. Mr.. Handy asked that
paragraphs of the information alleging
adultery as the basis of the suit be
stricken out. the allegations being in
definite Mr.. Whiteman objected,
holding that in the Addicks divorce
lsuit the court had ordered that no
amendments could be made to particu-
lars after the case had been before the
commissioner. On this question of law
lChief Justice Lore and Associate Judge
+ Grubh differed, whTeupon the case
was held up.
] COURT IN BANG POSTPONES BUSI-
NESS.
Before the Court in Banc Willard
, Salisbury presented a case stated OF
the Equitable Guarantee and Trust
! Company. trustee, VS.. John P. Dona-
! hoe. collector. an action to decide the
4 conshtutionality Of the Adams invest.
: ment tax law About $4,000 is in
T volved. Upon agreement by counsel
\ the case went over until January "a.
The same tribunal heard argument
e in the appeal case Of William e. Hus'
n bands. collector. VS.. Abner p Talley
g. This case. which involves the question
Il whether school commissioners o
q Brandywlne hundred can raise by taxa
n tion more than $500 annually for i'm
lprovement. was tried in SuperioI
e Court recently and a verdict giveI
Husbands with the understanding tha
y final adjudication of the suit should b
e made by the Court In Banc. 1t is thi
+ final argument the court is now hear
ing. It appears that the school com
r. M, ssioners of Brandywine hundrei
y agreed to raise S1.500 for school i'm
g. provcment and levied an additions
M tax Of $3.50 on Mr. Talley, which he re
10 fused to pay. believing that under tn
law the commissioners had not au
y. thority to raise more than $500 in an
one year for improvement II
whether OF not this law has been az
"a pesled that has precipitated the pres