The sun., 1901-12-03
CIVIL COURT
IN SESSION
Case Of w. & N. VS.. William B.
Clerk Begun.
1T WILL BE A LONG TRIAL
Argument on Demurrer in the Case
of John M acFarlane VS.. Garrett
& Barr Heard--- -Continu-
ance Granted.
1T WILL BE A LONG TRIAL

Civil business of the November term
was entered upon in Superior Court yes
terday and considerable was done during
the day. At 2.30 o'clock a jury was
drawn and trial of the case of the Will
mington and Northern Railroad Company
VS.. William Il. Clerk was begun. Levi
G. Bird and Charles NJ. Curtis represent
the railroad company and Nields, Brown
and NieldS are counsel for Mr.. Clerk.
The case involves claim of the rail
road company's against Mr.. Clerk Of $1S.-
'974.60. The allegations are that the rail
road company for several years carried
coal for the George III. Mccall Company.
In 1897 the railroad company believing
the Mccall Company to be in failing cir
rumstances called upon William B. Clerk
as president Of the company regarding
the affairs of the company.
According to the statement of Mr.
Bird Mr.. Clerk gave verbal and written
assurance that the company's claims
would he settled and gave four prOmis-
sorry notes aggregating $13,S79.33 and also
his personal written guarantee with each
that settlement would be made If the
company permitted the Mccall Company
to continue it's business. These notes
with interest to date and n book account
Of $5.095.27 with interest to date com
prise the claim of the railroad company.
Several witnesses for the plaintin were
heard yesterday and the trial will be
resumed this morning. Four or five days
will he taken up in hearing the case.
Argument was heard on demurrer III
the case of John MacFarlane VS.. Garrett
X Barr, I.ilburne Chandler for Mac
Faranc. ana III. S. England and III. III
Ward for the defendants. The demurrer
was sustained as to three counts and
nyerruled as to one. A Continuance OF
the case was granted.
Continuance was granted in the case
Of Thomas j. Burris VS.. Della Sharpe.
In No. IA on the argument list, Mary
n. Anderson vs.. Charles Nj. Anderson
the petition was dismissed, but another
ease under the same name continues on
the list, and il was continued until the
February term.
The divorce eases of Susie A. Brintol
vs.. Harry G. f,rinton, Anita ID. Roberts
Us. .lorris /. Roberts, Elwood George
IS. Elizabeth j. George were continued
|.until the February term.
The case of James Mason VS.. George
BY consent of counsel, the case OF
Helen $. Chandler VS.. the Mayor anC
Council ana the Baltimore 4 Philadel
pha Railroad Co., was discontinued
I.ilhurne Chandler for the plaintiff, ID
!. Reinhardt for the city.
Settlement was reported in the cast
Of James Y. Crowdng VS.. the Whining
ton City Railway Co.; Bggs for Crowd
.ng, and Hayes for railway company.
Judgment in favor of the plaintiff fo
S33O.S7 was entered in the case of JohI
Il. Taylor vs. William ii. Lummis, Eng
and for Taylor. Lyman for Lummis.
| City Solicitor Rcinhardt told the cour
that Robert q. Harman, who is in thu
ease involving the right of the city to tn!
| the roadbed of the Wilmington Cit,
| Railway Co.. had been called to Colorado
IN account of the serious Illness of hi
brother. No time was set for the argu
ment Of the ease on case stated.
Continuance was granted in the appea
case of Wells Herring X Co. VS.. John Il
| fiueSsford.
The eases of White Bros, d. b. a. VS.
| Robert Marshall Hannum, p. b. r., an
Robert NJ. Hannum, d. b. a.. VS.. Henr
O. White, p. b. r., will be referred 70 r"'
| hrees.
4 demurrer was sustained in the cas-
II Lille NJ. Rees VS.. Lewis NJ. Price an
William T. Money, constable; J. q
Gray and l.. Irving Handy for plaintiff
md Willis for defendants.