Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1902-03-13
PEREMPTORY WRITS ISSUE
Against the Bay State Gas Co. Of Della
ware and the Sonora Copper Co.
REQUIRING THEM TO
FILE CERTIFICATES
Showing How Capital Stock
Has Been Paid For.
SURETY co. IS TO PLEAD NEXT WEEK

The Superior Court Monday granted
two perempt0ry writs of mandamus,
requiring the Bay State Gas Go. and
the Sonora Copper Co. TO file certltl
Gates showing how their capital stock
has been paid for.
In the Bay State Gas case, the
petitioner for the mandamuS was II.
Content & Co of New York, which |
was represented by Anthony Higgins |
and Mr.. Limhurger of New York The |
gas company was represented ~ |
Herbert II. Ward and Walter H. |
Hayes. Chief Justice Charles u.
Lore and Associate Judge William
| G. Spruancc constituted tho court,
Messrs Ward and Hayes attacked the
service of the alternative writ which
the court had previously issued, but
| their motion to quash was uvnrruled,
| They opposed the issuance of the
peremptory writ on the ground that 10
compel the company 10 present u certitl-
ate of how its stock was paid for from
the beginning was a retroactive measure
not intended in the statute. They held
also that the court could not compel
the officers Of the company to swear to
Il certificate. for swearing WAS u FER
sonal and not an official act. The court
granted the paremptury writ reCnrnahle
the first day of the May term Of court.
Mr.. Hayes had an exception noted
to the judgment in that regard, and
counsel proposes taking the CASTE to the
Supreme Court.
Mr.. Higgins also represented the
petitioner, Frederick Phillips, in the
case against tine Eioaor;! Copper Go.
The return q the sheriff showed that
service of the alternative writ had
been made upon +. -. Warlcs, q
resident director Of the company, but
no one was in court to appear for IT,
The court therefore granted lercmp-
tory writ of mandanus returnable also
on May 18th.
; In accordance with the decision of
tho court, Attorney General Ward has
filed an information alleging that the
Delaware Surety Go. tiled u false
certificate of the payment Of capital
stock, and on application of Walter Il.
Hayes who is associated with Mr..
Ward in the case, the court Monday
! directed the surety company To tile its
pleas by the first rule day in April.
, Henry G. Conrad, as attorney for the
, Levy Court, filed Il case stated under
, the name of Horace e. Rcttew, re-
a ceiver of taxes, &c, vs. st. Patrick S
Roman Catholic Church. William
, Michael Byrne is on the other side.
80 The question involved is the right of
!, the county to tax the property, lill
! French street, which is used as II resi-
/. denco by the sisters who teach in St
i Patrick's ParOchial School. The church
!. claims that it receives no revenue from
!. the property and that it is used for
charitable purposes. When Mr.. Conrad
, asked leave to file the case stated, the
! | ,irt Id that Il All ht IN, ntsa
!. upon moot questions, but only upon
:. questions in which suit had actually
!, been brought. Mr.. Conrad said that
n suit was involved.
n William S. Hilles presented the
IS petition of W. Scott Vernon, asking
|, the court for rule to quash an attach,
ment on certain shares of stock Of tho
3, Republican Printing and Publishing
= Co. He claimed that he had NJ
l ownership in the stock. The rule was
;, ordered returnable ut the first of the
, May term.
|. Judge Boyce joined the court in tbs
IS hearing of the argument on the cas-
!, stated Of Julian Cochran VS.. John T.
l, Cochrans' executors. 4 legacy WA
4, left to Julian, who owed the estate
some money: the question involved
le was whether he must pay interest OF
,, tHtt ueDI up 10 UHe tllne OF INC paE
d, ment to him of the legacy. Benjamin
p Nields represents Julian Cochran, an,
b, John H. Rodney, the executors.
); In the case of Frick VS.. the People
Railway Co, William S. Iiillcs an
le nounced that it had been agreed t
m accept judgment for $1,000.
~ The Superior Court adjourned it
I'd February term without day about
T. O'Clock Monday afternoon. The las
ic case before the court was that of Julia
of Cochran VS.. John B. Cochran's excel
4 tors, which was argued by Beniami
be Nields and John IL. Rodney. job
i, B. Cochran gave to Julian Cochran
Id legacy, and directed that any debt tn;
It's Julian might him should be dcductr
is. from tho legacy. The question pr,
NV sented to the court was whether Il
30 debt which Julian owed to his faith
should carry interest after the death
the testator.
The question has never before bee
raised in this State and it DOES not ~
NIL pear to have been directly raised in ar
on States, except Massachusetts, New Yol
m and Iowa.
,at The next term of.court will begin ,
he May Goth