Five Mile Beach weekly journal., 1922-12-15

annual Trip allOWeu IHem ny tHc DOoiV
of Education of that city to permit
them to see the methods used by the
county courts. A resumption of the
Taylor & Smith VS.. Sites case was at
once begun with Mrs. Taylor again
taking the stand. Following her testl-
mony and cross-examination the de-
tense lawyer asked for a non-suit, but
this motion was denied, so he called
his witnesses. These included JOS.
Sites, the defendant; Freeman Doug
lass, Mrs. Douglass. Mrs. Taylor was
again called to the stand, followed by
1. H. Roley, president of The Roley
Chemical Products Company, OF At
lantic City. AS this last witness fin
ished his testimony Judge Donges de-
clared a noon recess. At 1.30 the
court again opened with Lawyer Carr
reviewing the case to the jury. He
asked that they find a decision in favor
of Mrs. Taylor for $4,000 and interest
for the rental lost for the summer of
1921. Judge Hildreth 10Y made his
appeal to the jury asking for a de-
cision of no cause for action. In the
rebuttal by Lawyer Carr, which Incl
dentally was very dramatic with an al
fusion to the "Old Homestead" Little
girl playing in the yard ETC., he
brought out several good points. The
jury was now charged by Judge Dom
ges after which they retired.
The Grand Jury report was now
,ooJrr ond nraconfo6 fn tho TudQp
after which his honor excused these
men and women No. 8 of the Circuit
Court issues was next. Again Judith
M. Taylor was plaintiff against her
brother-in-law, Jos. S. Sites, with the
same lawyers representing the two
parties. This case was an action to
get damages for malicious prosecution
and libel of Mrs. Taylor by Sites,
when he had her arrested on a charge
of throwing carbolic acid around the
house at $40 Broadway, West Cape
May, and also of destroying property
at this place. She was brought be-
fore the magistrate at West Cape May
on these charges and her case was
presented to the Grand Jury in a past
term and thrown out without any in
dictment. Judge Hildreth stated that
the defense meant to show that the
solution she threw around the prop
erty was thrown, not sprayed, and
was so strong that it removed paint
from furniture. That she destroyed
sun1owers on property and made her.
self obnoxious. The defense lawyers
were willing to admit the arrest, but
that this was done without malice.
Witnesses were now called, the first
being former Prosecutor Cole, Presi-
dent Roley, of the Roley Chemical
Company, was again brought to the
stand and gave some interesting data
when questioned regarding the prop
critics of carbolic acid. He also pre-
scented samples of disinfectant con-
tanning carbolic acid, coal tar pro-
ducts and "Flymol," the disinfectant
which Mrs. Taylor claimed she used
on the West Cape May property. With
the latter solution Mr.. Roley bathed
his face and hands, sprinkled on his
clothing and even tasted with his
tongue without damage. Mrs. Taylor
and her husband, Samuel Taylor, were
the next witnesses to be called. Judge
Hildreth stated he believed the
plaintiff must be discharged from her
charges before recovery for damages
can be instituted. He cited a case to
prove this, but the case was not salts
factory to Justice Donges. Mrs.
Douglass was now called to the stand
and while being questioned, Justice
Donges ordered the case recessed till
1920, while a new jury was called.
After this jury was selected he stated
that aside from the two juries then
serving, the balance of the jurors were
excused for the week. The Jury re-
port on the Taylor & Smith VS.. Sites
case was now heard with a decision
of the defendant of no cause for &C.
ton, after which the Judge declared
the court adjourned until 1920 Thurs
day morning.
All of Thursday morning was occu-
pied in the case and it went to the
jury about 2.15 P. M.
The next case tried was Supreme
! Court Issue No. 5, wherein Clara Ras-
mex was asking for election of Wilbert
B. Hudgins from the Edgeton Inn
property at Wildwood on the grounds
that Hudgins did not live up to the
terms of his rental agreement. At
torney Mark r. Sooy, of Wildwood,
represented Mrs. Rasnek, and William
S. Darnell the defense. Several wit
nesses were heard and at 4 P. M.
court adjourned until Friday morning,
December 18th. Just before adjourn
ment the jury in the Taylor VS.. Sites
case came in with a verdict of not
guilty.
The Rasnek VS.. Hudgins case is now
on as we go to press. This is the last
of the cases to be heard before Judge
Donges. The Common Pleas issues
and appeals will be brought before
| Iudpo Harry II EldrodCQ novf wool