Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1902-06-19

who are charged with conspiracy to
secure &, 500 from County Treasurer
Rettew by means of padded bill. So
decided the General Sessions Court
Saturday morning
Chief Justice Lore in announcing
the decision, said that tho court had
considered tho argument carefully and
refused to make the order for bill Of
particulars.
William S. Hilies, of counsel for the
defence, asked leave to note an cXcep-
ton. The court said the exception
could DO noted for what it was worth.
Mr. llilles stated that two petitions
had heen filed as to the absence Of
material witness, and because of them
and Of the large quantity of testimony
ncedei the defendants desired the case
continued until the next term.
Attorney General Ward opposed the
continuance, asserting that it would
beaserious injury to Justice, inasmuch
rs several witnesses who are now in
The power of the State can be produced
at this term, but it is doubtful if they
ran he producei at the next term. lie
held that the defendants had had ample
4 time to prepare their case. God help
the State, /" exclaimed Mr.. Hilles, IF
they ard using such witnesses as That
in sending such prominent men to jnil.
Why don tho State put them under
bond orr put them in jail, if necessary?
4 thinklth is mighty poor grounds
for rushing such prominent men into ii
y trial unprepared.
Inc court granted continuance
until the September term.
THE FAHEY ENRICHMENT.
In the case of tho State vs.. Patrick
= Fahcy, charged with subornation of
4 perjury Mr.. Bi2Ss moved to quash the
/ Indictment on the ground that it does
not sct any offence against the laws of
4 the State of Delaware.
Deputy Attorney General Robert II.
Richards, for the State, opposed tho
n DUPLICATION to quash.
Tho court has granted decree of
iivorce in the case of Thomas Fox VS..
Mary L. Fox.
Tho petition was dismissed in tho
liyoroe case of Anita ID. Roberts vs..
Norris |. Roberts.
PLAINTIFF DRAWN AS JUROR.
Allison S. Truitt Of New Castle was,
" singular coincidence, drawn as
The first juror, in the Superior Court,
Monday, in the suit of Mr.. Truitt
and his brother, George r. Truitt,
4 igainst Patrick Fahey, which was
,alled for trial, Prothonotary Speak
man called attention to the matter and
he court, naturally, excused Mr..
A eruitt from serving as juror and
Ar. Truitt took his seat with his
ttornoys, Artemus and Martin Il.
Smith. The following jury was drawn :
lanes Ii. David, William II. Mount,
Jacob Foster, Alfred q. Brooks,
William A. Croney, j. d. Deakyne,
4 John G. Reynolds, Lewis +. Talley,
Joseph A. Rhoades, John W. Mccoy,
Frederick Darlington and John l..
II Deputy. William Lawton and Robert
n r. Dennison were challenged. Mr..
Il Fahey was represented by Charles W.
4 Smith and Samuel S. Adams, Jr.
A In outlining the case, the attorneys
flor Truitt Brothers alleged that Mr..
EFahey contracted with the Levy Court
Ito build Silver Run Road in ST. Georges
hundred, in October, 1900 and that
MIR. Fahey contracted with the plain
'@iffs to do all of the hauling and filling
Tor the road, which was To be 5000
i, 4, $eet long, % feet wide and feet high,
=, nd they alleged that Mr.. Fahey broke
N the contract by not notifying the
NJ plaintiffs when to begin work and
II doing tho work himself or having it
'Vdone by some one else. The plaintiffs
asked for So, 600 damages, alleging that
II they had been put to great loss as a
i result of the transaction.
II Allison S. Irutt, one of the members
II of the firm, testified that n contract
was partly made on October lst 1900.
and ratified on October 4th. An alleged
written contract was submitted ir
i evidence and Mr.. Truitt was asked tt
!, state the verbal portion of the con
N tract. Counsel for defendant objected
n on the ground that it is presumed, il
e law, that tho whole contract is written
|. II The question was not allowed where
u upon the witness proceeded to explain
N that he and his brother began, afte
making the contract, preparation t,
begin work under it. Ho said SOM
n changes were made in the specification
and Mr.. Fahey told him ne would re
% lease the Truitt Brothers from the con
y tract, but witness said they had entered
into it in good faith and intended t.
fulfill it, whereupon Mr.. Fahey toll
f him to get ready aud notification woul
be given when to proceed, but no sucl
+ notification was received. Witnes
Nc alleged that n the matter Of preparatio
the firm engaged the services of seve
nd arts ana three scoops and had arrange
to handle d01 cubic yards Of Garth pc
na day Witness estimated that the profit
IJ would have amounted to about 81, 4Ot
ds which was eight cents PER cubic yard
iii Witness could not tell what tire actut
I'D expense of preparation was, as Il
uyt account lad been kept of it.
y Witness was cross examined by G. "
smith and Samuel s. Adams.
At tho conclusion of the eros:
i. Examination of the witness Charles VI
M smith, Of counsel for the defendan
~ lskei for II non-suit on tho groun
Il that there was distinct difference
nh he contracts as alleged and proven,
hi The application was denied
IN While attending the funeral of ID
SIp Ealen Harlan, at Wilmington al
: 8randywine cemetery, about 2 o'cloc
ihe Monday afternoon, Chief Justit
ID Charles B. Lore, who was ono of ii
ioHutary Iallbearers, was slightly pro
rated by tho heat, and swooned Gal
IN, NJ into the arms Of Alfred Gawthro
oh ipother honorary ralloearer. He hi
NM, ust gone from tine Court HOUSE, whe
i \ e had presided, until O'Clock, in Il
nil SUPERIOR Court. Although he was II
nerd ceiling we'll when he left home, he hi
sa lad busy morning, rs he and ASS
III late Justice Pennewill had been hea
,ng the suit of Truitt Bros. of n,
lastle VS.. Patrick Fancy, an action /
hOGO damages for alleged breach
dp ontract in connection with the bull
,.a x of Silver Run road They hat al
,,,c 1asidered much other business, u
de hen the time for recess arrived, al
,os clock, those in attendance at Cot