Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-12-26
SUPERIOR COURT BUSINESS,

I;yron Gets n yerdict-DecIsion for Plain
TIM in Garnishee Case MandRnius Pro-
cecdinEs.
The jury In the oas Q OF john r. Byron
VS. Max Abramson, returned q verdict
for Slit in favor of the plaintiff at
Monday afternoons session Of Superior
Court Byron sued for wages.
A jury was drawn to Try the case OF
John ". Jolla va. Michael Reagan, Jr.,
garnishee OF Julian Cochran. ,'ohn II.
Rodney for plaintiff, and Col. BENJAMIN
Nislds, for tho defendant. dolls had
claim of S5i, 80, dated May 23th, 1888,
and last spring laid an attachment in
the hands OF keegan. who was tenant
on lam 10 which Cochran had one
sixtn interest, as claimed by Jola.
Cochrsn's interest was sold In May last,
and the whole farm VIII oh had belonged
to Cochran q mo her, was sold under an
Orphans Court order iatcr. There
vera 5000 bushels of wheat, and
Coohran's interest was alleged to be
one sixth of /. 600 bushels or PCT bushels.
The total claim, with interest is SOB. %.
Mr. Rodney called j. Frank Biggs to
the stald to testify az to statements
ouncerning Cochran's interest in the
wheat crop. Col. Nields objected
strenuously to Mr.. Biggs testifying on
the ground that he was attorney of re-
cord, that any commun cation between
tn defendant and him was confidential,
aud it would be against public policy
to allow hiio to do so. lie declared that
in another case, the court had ruled
under similar circumstances that an at
torney in a cause cannot relate what
was said to him by one Of the parties
on the opposite side. The court held
that the circumstances OF the present
cas-, we're not such as 10 exclude the
testimony. A funny incident was when
Dol. Needs appealed to Thomas Davis
to tell the ruling OF the court in the
case he had mentioned, Mr.. Davis hav-
ing been the attorney whose testimony
was refused, and it was soun apparent
that Mr.. Davis recollection did not
agree with the record. Mr.. Biggs test
ned that keegan told him that Cochran
had one-sixth Of the landlord e share.
Col. Nields asked far a norsuit on
| the ground that no lease between
Reegan and Cochran had been shown.
The court refused his motion and he
went to the jury.
Mr.. Ksegan testified that Or. 7. II.
Gilpn was his landlord and he did net
know Cochran in the matter Despite
the attachment he paid the landlord 3
reoeipts to DR.. Gilpin. DIR. Gilpin
testified rs to renting the farm to
Keeean, and said he was the manager
OF the property.
The Jury returned verdict in favor
Of the plaintiff.
In tie case OF r. W. Pitcher vs.. W.
E. Gibney,sL. Irving Handy started
mapdamas proceedings 10 require
Pitcher to show cause why his iudg-
msnt against Chimney, fer about &5J
standing since October 9th, 1894, should
not be stricken from the docket, on the
ground thar more than three years
elapsed between the giving of the judg
ment and the filing Of the transcript
with the parliamentary. Mr.. Handy
claims that one day more than three
years elapsed and that sciare faoias
Is necessary to revive the judgment.
Robert Pennington, for Pitcher, holds
that the time elapsed was within the
legal limit of three years, and that the
judgment and execution were regular
The rule was made returnab!e January
18th.
| jury was drawn In the case OF
James e. Mitchell 4 Co., use Of r., W..
g. u. Railroad Co., vs.. Delaware Cotton
Co., John Biggs for the plaintiff, and
Harry Emmons for the defendant. II
is an action 10 recover $3.50 for four
bales Of warps alleged to have been de-
livered to the cotton company,
Court adjourned until 10 o'clock, this
morning.