Evening journal., 1904-12-17
MAYOR BOYD CASE
MAY Be SETTLED
His Claim for $3.50 Against
Levy Court Will Probably
Not be Argued
CONTINUED UNTIL NEXT week

on the application OF William II.
Cooper. Jr., in the Superior Court this
morning the rule in the case Of Mayor
Boyd. Of New Castle, against the Levy
Court was continued until some day on
which the court viii fix next week. Mr.
Cooper. who is counsel for Mayor Boyd.
filed a petition two weeks ago. asking
for mandamus proceedings commanding
President Chandler. Of the Levy Court,
to sign a warrant for $1,000 in the may
or's favor. This amount he claims to
be due him for the commitment Of va
grants to the old New Castle jail from
April u, 1885, until January, 1900. He
claims the bill was once passed by the
court but the president at that time re-
fused to sign the waratn.
! At the time the petition was fled a
rule was ordered returnable last Satur-
day. when by agreement of counsel II
was continued until today.
It is now said that the case may be
disposed Of without any argument.
Argument was heard today on de-
murrer in the case Of Barbara Meow
an ct al. VS.. the b. & o. Railroad Com
pany. The plaintiff Is represented by
Lilburne Chandler and Andrew r. San
born is counsel for the railroad COM
pany. 1t Is claimed by the plaintiff
that the failure Of the railroad TO build
a retaining wall caused the plaintiff s
land to cave in and thereby resulted IN
considerable damage.
In his demurrer Mr.. Sanborn claim
ed the plaintiff did not sufficiently fix
the date of the injury to the property
nor state where the land Is situated.
/ After hearing the argument the court
sustained the demurrer and Mr.. Chand-
Ter then made a motion for leave Il
amend which was granted.
This is a peculiar case from the fact
that since the action was first brought
about two years ago. five or six import.
ant witnesses for the plaintiff hav,
died. They were George r. Townsend
! Chandler Gray. William Wrty. Henry
/. f. Pickels, James Barkley and Mary
Gray
There was a short argument in tn
case of the National Dredging Com
pany VS.. the Farmers Bank William
S. Hilles represents the dredging com
! pany and II. II. Ward the bank. tn
court ruled that the plaintiffs counse
, would have to amend his declaration
. 1t is an action brought by the dredgin
company to recover a balance which
is alleged should be due the company
the Farmers Bank. The grounds 70
this claim is that certain amounts wer
paid out upon unauthorized checks.
The court then adjourned until mex
Tuesday morning.
A jury in Superior Court yesterday af
ternoon returned a verdict for S225, wit
interest from February. 1903 in favor O
William Naroth and Company agnins
= Henry Blouth. 1t was the balance claim
ed to be due for a machine for pitchin
j the inside Of beer kegs, furnished by tn
plaintiffs, which Mr.. Blouth alleged I
! be unsatisfactory. Christopher J.. War
! and Arthur W. Spruance represented tn
! plaintiff and Harry Emmons represente
l Mr. Blouth.
r By agreement Of counsel a verdict 10
$3.50 was rendered in favor of Elizabet
! ]. Kirby VS.. James II. HoffeclSer, execu
! tor Of Samuel Culbert. The amount wa
: for services rendered. Colonel Benjami
I Nields represented the plaintiff and Wi
2 liam s. Hilles represented the defendan
The court granted a non-suit in tn
case of william c. Lattomus agans
Hawkins and Company to try to recovC
S225. Martin f. Smith represented Lat
tomus and Thomas Davis represente
h Hawkins and Company.