Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1914-10-13
S6O.111.19 VERDICT
AGAINST CANAL CO.
Case Goes to Jury After
Court Bars Statute OF
Limitations
DEFENDANTS
WILL APPEAL

In the United States Court here this
afternoon a verdict OF S6O.11119 was
given the Government in its suit
against the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal Company to recover alleged un.
paid dividends from the Chesapeake
/ & Delaware Canal Company, on four
counts. as follows: First. S2l, $3.50,
with interest since 1874; second,S14,-
/ CPS. with interest since 1875; third.
I S14,625, with interest since 1876, and
/ fourth, a general Indebtedness of
1854, 100000. The verdict represents
the dividend amount plus interest from
1911, when the Government first put in
/ its claim, to date. Interest was not
allowed from 1874 TO 1911 on the divi-
I bends. The case will be appealed.
In resuming the trial this morning
/ Charles Biddle, who with his sons ana
| Andrew c. Gray represented the defend
ant company, continued his argument Of
! yesterday afternoon in regard TO the
statutes of limitation AS to debt rum
I ming 20 years with no attempt of col
lection being presumed by the courts
as having been paid.
After Mr.. Bddle had completed his
argument, Mr.. Gray offered several sug-
aestiOns applicable to the case. He DO
clared that the cause Of the American
Revolution was due to the crown at
tempting 70 have one law for himself
and another for his subjects. and that
the United States should be- regarded
as only an individual and that il it dis
regarded this law it would be logical
to disregard all other laws.
District Attorney Nlelds, who is be-
ing assisted by Chapman G. Maupen,
as associate counsel, then spoke
briefly in rebuttal.
Judge Bradford dwelt upon the
deposition of James A. L. Wilson,
which was offered in evidence yes
terday and objected to by counsel
for the defendant company and came
10 the question Of the applications OF
the statute Of limitation. and an
nounced that the Court was of the
opinion that the contention could not
stand. The Court remarked that
the Government was charged with
such multiplicity of duties that II
would be unfair and against public
policy TO enforce the statute of limita-
ton in such case.
Judge Bradford then read a deci-
sion handed down in 1850 in which
the United States was exempt in ap-
plication of the statute OF Limitation.
after which he announced it was the
duty of the Court to sustain the OBJ
! lection made against admitting the
deposition of James A. l.. Wilson. The
] nan
position might be admitted In the
trial az a later date.
Mr.. Nields then announced that tn,
p government rested and counsel fol
J the defendant company were excused
in order to confer as to what cours,
Of action they would take.
: Mr.. Gray said it was admitted that
the United States was the holder OF
the canal shares and that the only
line OF defense was lack of proof Ia
show non-payment of the dividends.
Judge Bradford then addressed the
jury, instructing them that It was
his duty to instruct them to find a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the
United States.
Judge Bradford informed Mr.. Bid
die that the question OF the applica-
ton of the statute Of limitations in
the case was a most interesting one
and that he would be keenly inter-
ested in the ultimate result
Mr. Biddle then asked that an ex-
ception be filed as to the instructions
to the jury.
At the request Of Mr.. Biddle Judge
Bradford consented to q reasonable
length Of time to file a motion for a
new trial. The attorney explained
that John G. Johnson would head the
legal talent of the defendant company
should the motion be granted.
The jury they returned the verdict.
The entire session of court yester-
day afternoon was devoted to argu-
ments between District Attorney
John p. Nields, for the government
and Charles Biddle, who is assOciat-
ed with Andrew c. Gray. District At
torney Nields endeavored to present
a deposition from James A. l.. VIII
son Of Philadelphia, formerly secre-
tary of the canal company who, with
Henry r. Lesley, treasurer, now dead
is alleged to have taken the dividends
Mr.. Biddle objected to the present
ing of the deposition, claiming that
Mr.. Wilson should be produced and
his testimony taken orally.
Mr.. Gray explained that he did not
think it was right that the deposit
ton should be read before the jury
when it contained so many things
that the defense would object to. He
said that in such a case it would be
perfectly proper to request the jury
to retire during the argument upon
the various phases of the deposition
Mr.. Nields explained that he had
offered the deposition to decide the
question as to whether or not the
burden rests with the complainant to
rebut any presumption of payment
by the defendant on account Of lapse
OF time.
Mr.. Gray informed the court that
the defense also objected to the depo-
sitiOn as it was immaterial at that
stage of the case, and also because
the deposition was made over a year
ago, on the ground of sickness, and
there had been no evidence submit
ted TO show that Mr.. Wilson was
unable to appear at the trial at the
present time and give his testimony
orally.
He stated that the. defendant com.
pany had received notice a year age
of the taking of the deposition which
was dated August 20, 1911.
Mr.. Gray stated that the statutes o.
the government required oral testimony
to be taken whenever possible, and HI
read the law upon the taking OF deposi
tions.
AIR Nields exnlainad that tbe +al-;,,