Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1902-02-21
WHEAT CASE
In JURY'S HANDS
Farmers Of County Are H.
tereSted in The Verdict
PENNEWILL DELIVERS CHARGE
Storm Of The Morning Caused Delay
in ReOpening The CaSe-MinOr
Court Matters

The storm OF this morning interfered
somewhat with the work OF Superior
Court, icy rails having prevented the
arrival OF the p w & b. trains. which
carried the members OF the jury in the
case of Boulder vs.. Cough until after
IL o'clock While the court waited for
the arrival OF the jurors, several minor
cases We're disposed Of
A jury of inQuistion gave the plain
tin in the case Of Joseph W. Kitchen
VS.. Richard @. Wright. a verdict OF
$7156.. The same jury gave Charles
II. Goodyear ct al, verdict of ST.
O69.02 against the Commercial Fire
Insurance Company.
Continuances were granted in the
civil suits of Rutan vs. Fahey and
Smith VS. Phillips.
1t was 1120 o'clock when the lawyers
In tn Boulden-Gough case resumed
their argument before the jury
1t continued until 1890 o'clock. Assoc
ciate Judge Peunewil charging the jury
as follows:
This Is an action OF trover, which is
a remedy to recover the value OF personal
property wrongfuly converted by am
other 20 his own use.
''lho suit Is brought by the plaintiff
David Bouldon, against the defendant
Joseph L. Cough, for the recovery Of the
value of q iot of wheat which the plain
tin claims was his property, and which
was ON or about the twenty-siXth day Of
November. 1893, taken, without his con-
sent, by his former tenant Joseph 5.
Petit and delivered to the defendant, who
converted the same 10 his own use. The
plaintiff contends, as you have observed.
that Petit gave him the said wheat in
satisfaction of a certain debt OF $4,000
which he, the said Petit, owed him, or in
satisfaction of so much thereof as might
be realized from the sale of the wheat;
and that az the time Petit removed the
wheat from the granary where il was
stored, and delivered the same to the de-
E PENDANT, it belonged to, and was the
! property OF, the plaintiff. The plaintiff
b further contends that the quantity Of
e wheat so taken and delivered TO the de-
4 PENDANT, and by the defendant converted
TO his own use. was about 475 bushels
the value whereof was at the time "a
4 cents per bushel.
e ",rhe defendant on the other hand
\ claims that he is not liable to the plain.
tih for anything. because the wheat in
, controversy was not the property OF the
: plaintiff at the time he bought It, but thai
the title thereto was at that time still il
Petit with whom he dealt and from
whom he purchased.
. ITO entitle the plaintiff to recover il
y AN action of trOver, two points are es
y sential 10 be- proved, CD property in the
= plaintiff and a right of possession at tn,
r time of conversion, and 90 a conversion
..ft I... d.
p own use
t III is admitted however, by the defend
s ant that 404 bushels and ten pounds o
= the wheat ia controversy were delivere,
4 TO him by Petit ut the time alleged by tn,
i plaintiff, and that its value was 6S cent
"a per bushel, that being the price he PAL,
. for il. Ii is also admitted by the defend
q ant that he did covert that quantity o
!, wheat TO his own use, and without tn
j consent OF the plantiff-his defens
, being that the wheat at the time of "a
i conversion was not the property of IN
! plaintiff.
1T Is manifest therefore that the i'm
y portant question for you TO determin
y from the evidence in this case is-wa
the wheat, at the time of its conversion
by the defendant the property of tn
plaintiff.
ii "No one can convey a valid title t.
e goods or personal property unless he b
y the owner or lawfully represents thu
n owner.
u If personal property be wrongful
q taken from the possession of a persoi
e who has "a the time IA general or specia
e property therein. and delivered to an
other, no title passes thereby to the per
h son TO whom it is delivered even if he b.
q an innocent and bona iide purchaser 10
n value. because the seller in such cas-
e having no right or title to the property
l. can convey none TO the purchaser.
d If you believe from the preponderanc
e that is the weight Of the evidence tina
the wheat in question belonged to-. am
was the property Of. the plaintiff at tn
time of It's conversion by the defendant
your verdict should be for the plaintiff
~ H. however, You do not so believe YOU
y verdict should be for the defendant.
= IF your verdict should be for the plain
! tin, it should be for such a sum as yo
I, believe from the evidence to be the valu
u of the wheat converted by the defendant
at the time of the conversion. with inter
est"
The jury was out at the hour Of re
|, cess
: SUES FOR HORSES DEATH.
As soon as the jury left the box an
other body was drawn to try the sui
of William II. Klair vs.. the Whining
ton Steamboat Company. an action I,
recover the cost OF horse which wa!
killed while aboard one of the defend
ant companys boats. T. Bayard Heise
. appeared for the plaintiff. and Horace
lG Knowles for the defendant