Smyrna times., 1923-06-27
SUPREME COURT CASES ARE
HEARD At DOVER PAST WEEK
FOUR OF SIXTEEN CASES SCHED-
ULED READY FOR ARGUMENT
One Was Joseph Silva VS.. George P.
ScOtten & Sons Involving the
WOrkmans Compensation Act


The Supreme Court convened at Do
YER Wednesday. The calendar was
gone over and out of the sixteen cases
scheduled but four were reported
ready for argument, namely. Mary
Silva, widow of Joseph Silva, deceased
VS.. George P.ScOtten and Sons; Worth
Steel Company VS.. Edwin B. Lewis,
trading as LandSdOwne Construction
Company; Benjamin L Rudnick vs..
Fannie SchOenberg; Edward V. Bring
hurst vs.. Mary c. Harkins. All of
the above cases are appeals from Su-
perior Court of New Castle county.
But three attorneys interested in the
cases were present at the opening of
the court, each of whom represented
the defendants, the attorneys for the
plaintiffs not being present. After
the court had waited a reasonable
length of time, it called the first case
ready for argument, that of Mary
Silva, widow of Joseph Silva, deceased
vs., George P. ScOtten & Sons, James
l. BOyce, representing the defendant,
ScOtten and Sons, was allowed to pro-
ceed with his argument with the un-
derStanding that the attorneys for the
plaintiff, Messrs. Garrett and Lilley,
could answer argument of counsel for
defendant or submit their case on
briefs. The Silva case involves the
construction of part of the Delaware
WOrkmen's Compensation Act to re-
cover for the death of the husband of
Mrs. Silva which occurred while he
was in the employ of D. E. O'Connell
anG Son. Among the cases continued
on the calendar were five cases of in
surance companies against the Rach-
lin Clothes Shop, Inc, on writs of
error from the Superior Court of New
Castle County. 1t developed later
Wednesday morning that Messrs. Lii
ley and Hilles, two of the ATTORNEYS
for the plaintiffs in two of the cases
scheduled for argument, went to the
Supreme Court room in the State
House on their arrival at Dover. while
the session of the Supreme Court was
being held in the Kent county court
house. Messrs. Lilley and Hilles had
been in Dover over one hour before
they were notified that the Supreme
Court was being held in the Kent
county court room. Explanations were
made by the attorneys to the court as
to their presence at Dover in full time
for the opening of the court.
Argument in three cases befora tho
supreme Court was completed late
frlday evening, the last case heard
oelng that of Edward Bnnghurst VS..
Mary c. Harkins, being case on q
writ of error from the Superior Court
OF New Castle county for damages for
an alleged assault and battery on
Mary c. Harkins, on or about Janu-
airy 81, 1920, the latter being in the
employ of Mr.. Bringhurst at the time.
Charles F.Curley was attorney for the
plaintiff, and Robert G.. Harman for
the defendant. The case of Worth
Steel Company VS.. Edwin r. Lewis
trading as the LanSdOwne Construc-
ton Company, in which the construc-
tlon OF six double houses was involved
was submitted by counsel on briefs
without argument. William S. Hilles
was counsel for the plaintiff. and rs
n. Ward for the defendant The only
case for decree was that of the Break
water Fisheries Company, ct. al VS..
the Commissioners of Lewes. in which
argument was heard in January. The
case was taken to the Supreme Court
on appeal from the Chancellor the
Chancellor having decreed that a lease
! executed between the Commissioners
of LeweS and the Breakwater Fisheries
Company, bearing date November 8.
1917, be reformed and amended. so as
to read: All former leases and agree
ments relative to the occupancy of
said public lands made between the
parties hereto, or their predecessors in
title, are hereby cancelled and made
null and void. And it is furthr or
dered, adjudged and decreed by the
Chancellor that Breakwater Fisheries
| Company, make, execute and deliver
to the complainant its deed, surren-
dering all of the land embraced within
| the lease bearing date September a ,
1912, except that portion of said land
which is described and set forth in
the lease bearing date November 8,
1917 From the above decree, an ap-
peal was taken by James NJ. Tunnel,
attorney for the Fisheries Company.
The decree handed down by the Su-
| preme Court sustains the Chancellor.
the language Of the decree being as
follows: "Decree of the Chancellor
will be affirmed. In the Chancellor's
opinion all the questions raised are so
fully considered, any opinion of this
Court would necessarily be largely
repetition. We have carefully exam
ined every question of law and fact
involved in the case and are clearly
of the opinion that the decision of the
Chancellor is correct. But while af-
frming his decree we express no