The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1902-04-22
THE SUPERIOR COURT.
VERDICT In FAVOR OF ANDREW
j. FlAHnER.
The jury Restored Him SI2,0Oe
Worth of Front Street Property
Which His divorced Wife Was
Holding on to-She Retains Three
Houses and Lots Worth $4,000.
preme Court.

day at $50 a. m. Judge Undertake
presiding.
The trial OF the case Of A. J.. Elan
uer against his divorced wife. Carrie
L. Butler. and her present husband
Henry W.. 3ud-r. =: Washington, u.
c., was resumed. Marsden Rellamy,
Esq, addressed the jury for the de-
PENDANT and was followed by Hen.
John D. Bellamy who closed the argu-
ment for the plaintiff. Judge Timber
lake then charged the jury. He non
suited the plaintiff as to the Peschau
property on the north side Of Dock
street between Fifth and sixth streets.
whereon are three residences, the
whole being valued at 5000 or $4,000.
He did so on the ground that the eyi.
dence was not sufficient to show that
Mr.. Fianner did not present his wife
with the money with which this prop
erty was bougns. He charged the jury
that in making up their verdict they
would therefore not take into account
that part of the property sued for. but
that they should consider the issues
with reference - the three story brick
building at ia North Front street, now
occupied by Col. F. w. Kerchner. The
following issues were submitted to the
judy at Il o'clock and at BIS
p. m, they returned their verdict, to
wit:
1. Was the lard described in article
. of tho nnn1nInInt nirraIa God u-ith tho
money of plaintiff? Answer, Yes"
2. If so, was the deed to it made to
the defendant without his knowledge
or consent? Answer. Yes"
3. Is plaintiff cause of action barred
by the statute Of limitations? An
swer, No"
Judgment was entered up for the
plaintiff in accordance with the finding
of the jury. It was adjudged and de-
creed that the defendant Carrie L.
Butler, formerly Carrie L. Flanner, is
declared to be d trustee of the plant
if, Andrew j. Flanner, his heirs and
assigns Of and for the land and prop
erty described ~ the bill of complaint.
1t was further ordered adjudged and
decreed tha- Carrie l.. Butler and her
husband Henry w. Butler are ordered
and directed TO convey to Andrew J.
Flanner his heirs and assigns all the
real property embraced in the lot and
buildings at ia North Front street. 1t
was also further adjudged and decreed
that the decree of the court is declared
to operate as a deed of conveyance in
fee simple for the property to Andrew
J. Flanner, his heirs and assigns in as
full a and effect as a deed for
the same property proved n regis
tered. 1t was also ordered that a writ
Of assistance be issued by the clerk of
the court directed to the sheriff of
New Hanover county, commanding
him to place the plaintiff in possession
of the and and premises. It was Or
dered that the plaintiff recover of the
defendants the costs of this suit and
that a copy of the decree be recorded
in the Office OF the register of deeds, of
New Hanover county, as required by
law.
The property which thejury restores
to Mr.. Flanner IS valued at ST., 900. TIE
lot fronts % feet in the eastern line of
North Front street, between Front and
Princess streets, and has a depth of 152
feet ten inches, extending astwardly
There is on the lot a valuable three
story brisk building, the rental from
which amount to 81. 200 a year.
Motion for a new trial was made for
the defendants, n the motion was de-
MED. The defendants counsel moved
to set the verdict OF the jury aside on
the ground that it was against the
weight Of evidence. The motion was de-
MED. and when judgment was ordered
to be entered for the plaintiff, the de-
PENDANTS took an appeal to the SUI
preme court On the exceptions noted
during the course of the trial and on eX-
ceDtions taken to Judge Timberlake's
charge, especially with reference to the
defendants contention that the actor
was barred by the statute OF limitations
the court having charged that If the
jury believed the evidence they mus
find that the statute of limitation:
would not apply. Notice of appeal wa:
waived and appeal bond fixed at $50
Sixty days were allowed 10
to make up statement Of the case OF
appeal. Sixty days were allowed to fl
a counter statement.
The plaintiffs attorneys, not salts
lee with hte courts not allowing tn
issues as to the Dock street property t
go to the jury, also move for a new
trial. The motion was denied. TIL
: plaintiff then moved to set aside tn
verdict. The motion was denied, an,
an appeal was taken to the suprem
court. Sixty days were allowed to fl
l a statement of the case on appeal an
/. sixty days to answer.
4 judgment was entered up for s25
and costs for the plaintiff in the sui
of Emeline Mask against the city c
: Wilmington. The city's counsel nov
$ for a new trial on the ground that tn
e court erred in not allowing his motto
~