The evening Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1902-1902, 1902-06-07
Announced Dselaleus

In Superior Court. ysstsrday after.
| nooa, much Of tina time Was donate d
| to the announcing Of decisions In
cases that had been argued at the
last term of court On the ben: b
we're Chief Justice Lore and Assoc.
late Judges Grub and Pennswill,
who are sitting in the May term;
aud Associate Judges Spruance and
Boyce, who sat at the February
term, when the arguments we're
made.
Judge Boyce read the decision of
the court on the demurrer filed by
counsel for the plaintiff in the case
Of John p. Donahoe VS.. The Star
Publishing Company, an acti on for
libel. William S. Hilles represents
Donahoe and J. Harvey Whiteman
and Victor B. Wooley the publishing
company. The demurrer was sus-
tanned and judgement respondent
custer was given In favor Of Donahoe
T. Bayard Heisler. on behalf of the
Publishing company, accepted judge
ment respondent custer. and new
plead!ngs will be filed by the defen-
dant company.
Judge Borce $ decision is regarded
as important by members Of the bar
40 there appears to be a confusion
regarding the libel laws In this
county. The judge found 1t neces.
| sary 10 revert to the common law as
laid down IN 1902 10 England, In
reaching his conclusions. In tho
course Of the decision. he said:
In no other state in tho American
union las the common law system Of
pleading as it had been developed
and existed in England at the time
OF the separation Of the American
/ colonies there from been more
strictly adhered tu than here in Del
aware. 1t Is essential therefore that
we disregard any changes 10 plead
ing in actions for SANDER and libel
which these procedure acts, and
rules may have effected confining
our inquiry to the system of commo n
law pleading as it existed at the
time Of our independence.
In discussing the laws Of Della
ware on the subject. Judge Boyce
said: "For the truth when pleaded
and given evidence is not q defense
to the action. The statue requires
proof, that the libel was written or
published properly for public in
formation and with no malicious or
mischlevous motives, 10 order to
warrant the jury in finding for the
defendcnt under such plea and
evidence. 10 addition 10 a plea
of truth, or Substantially true.
the delendent must set out the facts
in substance. the court held, and
must plead specially.
The plea containing statements of
probable cause and privilege, and
which negatived malicious and mis-
chievous motives, Judge Royce held
was manifestly bad. Privilege is not
defense to be pleaded especially.
"Evidence to the effect that the
statements in the supposed libel were
a common report is clearly admissible
under the general issue in unit lgotian
Of damages, Jud &c Boyce said.
Judge Pennewil read the decision
in the case Of the State vs.. James
Wesley Caulk and Aired Caulk, which
was certified from Magistrate Brat.
tons court into Superior Court, as it
involved title to certain lands in APP.
poquinimink hundred. 1t was an
ejcctmcnt suit, and it was necessary
for Judge Pcnncwil to interpret
certain provisions in will deyisins
certain lands to James, Alfred and
Leonard Cauk. Mrs. Rebecca Caulk
who is the widow Of Leonard Caull.
was elected from certain premises
which she claimed as her own The
dccision as read by Judge pcnnewill
set forth that she had legal title to
the land, it having been willed to
her by her husband. Martin b.
Burris represented Mrs. Cauik land
Harry Emmons represented james
aud Alfred Caulk.
Chief Justice Lore read the opinion
Of the court in the case of Julian
Cochran vs. Charles p. Cochran, T.
II. GilpIn and Joseph Gibson, execu-
tors Of the last will and testament of
John j. Cochran. This was case
stated. Colonel Benjamin NeIds
representing the plaintiff, and John
II. Rodney, the defendants. Julian
Cochran claimed that under the Will
$40. 90 still remains unpaid to him.
That amount represented interest
on certain bonds and book accounts
involved in the will from the ocath Of
John i. Cochran on December q,
1898, to the passing of the book &C.
count in 1900. The court decided
that Mr.. Cochran was not entitled TO
the $4,000 under the will, and there
fore q verdict was given in favor O[