Evening journal., 1914-10-13
S6O,111.19 VERDICT
AGAINST CANAL CO.
Case Goes to Jury After
Court Bars Statute OF
Limitations
DEFENDANTS
WILL APPEAL

against the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal Company to recover alleged UNI
paid dividends from the Chesapeake
* Delaware Canal Company, on four
counts, as follows: First, S21, 937 80.
with interest since 1874; secOnd,S14.-
625 with interest since 1875; third,
s14,525. with interest since 1876, and
I fourth. general Indebtedness of
| S154. 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-
bends. The case will be appealed
1 ln rasuming the trial tins morning
| Charles Biddle, who with his sons ana
/ Andrew {. Gray represented the defend
ant company, continued his argument OF
/ yesterday afternoon IN regard to the
! statutes OF limitation as to debt run
ming 20 years with mo- attempt OF col
lection being presumed b. the courts
as having been paid.
After Mr.. Biddle had completed his
argument Mr.. Gray offered several sup-
/ gestions applicable TO the case He do-
clared that the cause of the American
/ Revolution was due to the crown at
! tempting to have one law for himself
and another for his subjects. and that
! the United States should bee regarded
as only an individual and that ii it dis
regarded this law ii would be logical
/ to disregard all other laws.
District Attorney Nields, who is be-
] hrs -
as associate counsel, then spoke
briefly in robuttal
Judge Bradford dwelt upon the
deposition of James A. L. Wilson,
which was offered IN evidence yes
terday and objected 10 by counsel
for the defendant company and came
to 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 a multiplicity of duties that II
( would be unfair and against public
policy to enforce the statute of limita-
ton IN such a case.
Judge Bradford then read a deci-
sion handed down in 1850 in which
the United States was exempt in an
plicatiOn OF the statute OF limitation.
after which he announced IL was the
duty Of the Court TO sustain the OBJ
lection made against admitting the
deposition Of James A. L. Wilson. The
Court added however, that the de-
position might be admitted in the
trial at a later date.
Mr.. Nields then announced that the
government rested and counsel fol
the defendant company were excused
In order TO confer as TO what course
Of action they would take.
Mr. Gray said IL was admitted that
the United States was the holder OF
the canal shares and that the only
line or defense was lack of proof to
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 a 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.
| frrr rot 1ta t.e
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. Will
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 Il 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 10 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 ago
of the taking of the deposition which
was dated August %, 1911.
Mr.. Gray stated that the statutes OF
the government required oral testimony
TO be taken whenever possible, and he
read the law upon the taking of deposi-
tions.
AIR. Nields explained that the taking
OF the deposition year ago was on ac
count of the witness being ancient ant
intim." He read from the beginning OF
/ the deposition 20 show that the witnes.
e was suffering from a chronic disease in.