Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1902-06-12

Thrce decisions wero handed down in
SUPERIOR Court Friday afternoon.
On the bench wore Chief Justice Lore
and Associate Judges Grubb and
Pennewill sitting in tho May term, and
Associate Judges Spruance and Boyco,
who sat with the Chief Justic at tho
February term.
Judge William Ii. Boyce rend the
opinion Of the court on dcmurrers TO
the pleas in the libel case of John II.
DonahOe VS.. tho Star Publishing Go.
lie said in part;
In no other State in tho American
Union has tie common law system Of
pleading rs it had been developed and
4 existed in England at tho time of the
separation of tho American colonies
tkerairom been more strictly adhered
to than nero in Delaware. The court
confined its inquiry to the system of
common law pleading at tho time of
our independence, excepting so far az
it may have boon changed or modified
by constitutional or statutory provisions
of this State.
Ia discussing tho law of the State
the court said that tho truth when
pleaded and given in evidence is not
defence to the action. The statute re-
guiTes the further proof that the libel
was written or published properly for
public information, and with no
malicious or mischievous motives in
order TO warrant tho jury in finding
for the defendant under such plea and
erldtnCn.
The court held that the defendant
must not only plead that the article
was true, or substantially true, but
must set out tho facts in substance
and must plead specially that the arti-
Gle was published properly for public
information and with no malicious or
mischiovous motives
The plea containing statements Of
probable cause and privilege and mega
tivng malicious and mischievous mo-
tivcs was held to be bad
Tho court said that privilege was not
defence to DO pleaded specially.
Evidence to the effect that state
ments in the supposed libel were n
common report is clearly admissible
under the general issue in mitigation
Of damages.
The demurrer was sustained as to all
five of the special pleas, and judgment
respondent custer was given. The de-
PENDANT will need to. plead over again.
W. ii. Hllles presents Mr.. Donahoe and
J. II. Whiteman and Victor d. Woolloy
represent the Star.
TIE COCHRAN CASE.
Chief Justice Lore read the decision
in the case of Julian Cochran VS..
Charles p Cochran, H. II. Gilpin and
Joseph Gibson, executors of John Z.
Cochran. Tho plaintiff held that
s3l4. 80 was still duo him from the
estate, as interest on certain bonds and
book accounts involved in the will,
:Ium the death of John 2. Cochran
on December 9th, 1878, to tho passing
Of the book account in 800. Tho
court held that Mr. Cochran was not
entitled to tho $4,000. The case was
Argued some time ago on n case stated,
Col. Benjamin Nields representing the
plaintiff, and John II. Rodney, the
defendants.
INTERPRETING a WILL.
Judge Ponnewill read the decision
in the case of the State VS.. James
Wesley Caulk and Alfred Caulls, which
was certified from Magistrate Bratton's
court into Superior Court. 1t involved
title to certain lands in Appoquini-
4 mink hundred. 1t was an ejectment
Y suit, and it was necessary for the court
to interpret provisions in will devils
L Ing certain lands to James, Alfred and
Leonard Caulk, Mrs. Rebecca CaullS,
who is the widow of Leonard Caulk,
u was elected from certain premises
which she claimed as her own. Tho
decision set forth that she had legal
title to the land, il having been willed
to her by her husband. Martin b.
Burris represented Mrs. Caulk and
Harry Emmons represented James and
Alfred Caulli
THR wTHKLER VERDICT.
Three juries rendered verdicts within
l5~ minutes at Monday afternoons
session of Superior Court A verdict
for IS, 600 was found for the plaintiff
in the case of George II. Winlxler VS..
the Philadelphia & Reading Railway
Co., one of S1l for the plaintiff in that
of Max Abramson VS.. Steve or Steven
son Finn, and one of 81, 600 for the
plaintiff in that of Thomas j. Smith
VS.. George W. Phillips.
In the railroad damage case, Winkler
sued for $50, 900 for tho loss of three
fingers, while coupling cars. He was
represented by William S. Hilles, and
the railway company was represented
by Levi G. Bird and Andrew T.. San
born.
The charge to the jury was delivered
by Chief Justice Lore at the opening
Of the afternoon session. In the course
of the charge the court said sit is the
duty Of the master to provide for his
employees q reasonably safe place in
which to work, and reasonably safe
tools and appliances with which tc
work and also to keep them in q
reasonably safe condition. The place,
tools and machinery need not be of the
best, nor of the latest pattern, nor o.
the most improved kind, but must bt
reasonably safe and adapted to the pur.
pose for which they arc to be used
Where the master knows thai
the servant is inexperienced, he may
not presume that the servant appreci
ates and knows the risks Of his en-
ployment. In such cases it is the duty
Of the master to warn the servan
against risks known to the master anC
which il is unreasonable to suppose thu
servant appreciates y The as
sumption of risk, however, on the PAR
Of employees of railroad comEane
which are common carriers, engaged il
interstate commerce, has been modified
by act of Congress, known as "Th
Safety Appliance Act" (which provide
Tor automatic couplers on cars used il
Interstate commerce, and that employe
injured on cars in use contrary to tn
provisions of the act shall not b
deemed thereby to have assumed tn
risk.
In this case it is claimed by I'll
Plaintiff that at the time Of the acct
dent he was engaged in moving inter
state commerce for the defendant com
pany with n tandpr or cnr nnt anuiura