The evening Republican., 1902-06-23
Patrick Fahey Case Cont nued.

The case of the State vs. Patrick
Fahey, who was indicted by the
grand jury at this term of court on
charge of subordination Of perjury
was continued this morning until
the next term of court on a motion
of John Biggs, counsel for Fahey.
In the affidavit filed Mr.. Biggs gave
as the reason for new trial the alb
sence of a material witness. This
witness is John Deegan, who now
is supposed to beliving near Bridge
port, Pa. The affidavit relating to
this witness was as follows:
That. he has material witness
who resides and now is outside of
the State of Delaware; that the
name of the said witness is John
Deegan, and that the said witness
resides, as the said defendant is in
formed and believes, in or near
Bridgeport, in the State of Pennsyl-
vania; that he the said defendant is
unable to secure the attendance of
the SAID witness at this term of
court, but that the said defendant
believes he will be able to secure to
secure his attendance at the next
term of said court that the nature
of tie testimony of said witness, is
to prove that the said Joen Deegan
heard Frederic Van SAINT, (the per-
son whom the defen liant is charged
in said indictment, with having
suborned to commit the crime Of
perjury say that he would swear to
anything to get certain members of
the Levy Court out of trouble,
meaning as one of whom John
Lynn, who was then under indict-
ment in the said colrt. and whose
case had not yet co ne to trial and
that the said defendant patrick
Fahey) had nothing to do with the
said Frederic Vansant making the
said statement nor was he in any
way responsible for the said pur-
pose and intention of the said
Frederic Vansant; and that the de-
fendant believes that ha could not
safely and properly 60 to trial
without the presence of said wit
ness to his said trial.
Attorney General Ward stated that
as the Witness in the case Of the
State vs.. Frederick Vansant were
practically the same as in the Fahey
case, to save the state the expense of
a seperate trial, he would also ask
for that case to be continued until
term also. The case was continued
until next term.
c. l.. Ward and William S. Hilles
asked that theii names be withdrawn
as council for the plaintiff in the case
of Adam Newman vs.. the Diamond
State Iron Company. They hadnot-
itied Newman that the case was to be
heard but he failed to appear. Mr..
Curtis for the company requested that
the plaintiff be called and as he did
not reply asked that the court enter
a non-suit which was done. In the
case of Sarah Stratnerr vs.. The Will
mington City Electric Company judg-
mcnt was given the plaintiff for
$1,000. Harry Emmons was counsel
for the plaintiff and Waiter Hayes
for the defendant. A settlement hav.
ing been reached the cases of Joshua
Gilmon's administrator vs. the Pco-
ple's Railway company and Leslie
Dams VS. the same company were dis
continued.
The cases of John P. Farley and
Victorine A. Farley's administra.
tors vs. the Wilmington and New
Castle Electric Railway Company,
and John P. Farley vs.. the Will
mington and New Castle Railway
Company, were placed on trial.
Although both cases are before
the same jury, the jury if it so de-
sires can bring in a separate verdict
in each case. From the evidence
| it was shown that Mrs. Victorine
A. Farley on July 2nd, 1900, was
injured by team which she was in
being struck by one of the defend
ant company's cars at Pyle's Lane.
Mr.. Farley it is alleged suffered
much from her injuries and died on
December 18th, 1900.
1t was the same accident that
| HOFacb L. HudLlb WIS lUJuTeu Ill,
who recentlyrecovered several h un-
hred dollars for his injuries. 1t
was Mr.. Adams team that was
struck.
The suit brought by the admins
traitors il to recover for the pain
Mrs. Farley suffered from the in
juries.
Tho other case is brought by John
p. Farley and is to recover for the
loss of aervices OF his wife, Mrs.
Victorine A. Farley, while she was
sick. About the same witnesses
who testified in the Adams case sew
cral weeks ngo, were again exam
inod.
Walter II. Hayes represents the
plaintiffs, and Salisbury, Ponder
and Curtis the Company.
The cases will be concluded this
afternoon.
The argument list will be taken
up tomorrow.
1t is expected that court will ad.
journ for this term in two or three
| days