Year: 1879

ANTS AND THE CITY's MIND AT RI ST


THE JUDGES CHARGE.


When the jury in the ejectment suit
between the Delaware w. stern Railroad
Company and John A. and Eliza and
Mary Harris came down at New Castle
yesterday and rendered verdict in fa-
vor of the plaintiff, as gwen in a special
dispatch to yesterdays GAZETTE, one
Of the most long continued and closely
contested civil suits ever tried in our
court, had ended, and every ore was
surpris, d at the result.


A verdict for the defendan: had been
expected by those who had heard the
Judges charge, which, while perhaps
impartial, considering the facts in the
case, presented the matter in a light
more favorable to the plaintiffs than it
had been looked upon heretofore. The
verdict is general one and the plaintiff
can 60 upon the land and take any
amount they may desire. However Mr..
Cummins has made application to file
reasons for new trial and the matter
may not yet be settled. If the matter
rests here the suit of Harris VS.. the city
will hardly be pressed, as the land re-
covered by the railroad company is the
same as obstructed by the city, and Har-
rises having been proved not to be an
oWncr cdnnOC get damages.


The Court in the charge, after stating
he action of ejectment, defined the law
on the subject, the whole conclusion of
which was that if the plaintiffs have
shown a clear title he is entiCled to re-
cover the land unless the defendant has
shown a better title or has shown that
he has held position adversely for 20
years the plaintiff must recover the
whole of some well defined part of the
land, and will lose the suit unless he
proves his possession the plaintiff must
recover on sight of his own title and
must show perfect right OF possession,
until this is proved the defendant can
fold his arms in perfect security. The
court laid down the following points: !:
first, the plaintiff must recover on
strength of their own title, and the de-
Tense need not make defense second,
when plaintiff have proved a valid title
to all the land or some part he is entitl-
ed TO recover, unless defendant has had
20 years adverse possession; third,
where the plaintiff is not able to show
possession to all the land he must show
some part, and unless he can do that he
is not entitled to a verdict; fourth, it Is
generally admitted that when a plaintiff
has legal title he is entitled to the land;
if lthe defendant has also a title the
other must first be proved illegal before
it can have effect.


The court now took up the titles Of
fered in evidence by both sides, and af
ter reviewing them turned to the EVIL
dence, and dwelt at some length. The
plaintiffs claimed to the edge of the
; present dock and the defense holds that
this dock Is not the true boundary but
, further east than Thomas Vests dock.
As to where Thomas Vests dock was
we have the testimony of Charles and
Enoch Moore, and it is perfectly compe-
tent evidence. In regard to the line
the court said the line mentioned in
deeds produced by the plaintiff was the
same as that run by Daniel Farra. The
Messrs. Bush appeared satisfied at that
time that Mr.. Farra had run the true
line, and again when the land was sur
veyed under the order of the Court of
Chancery the line remained at the same
!. e. upon the line of what is said to be
Thomas Vests dock. Under this sur
vey the Railroad Company came into
possession of it, and from the manner
in which they acted, it is to be presum-
ed that they were satisfied that the sur
vey made under the order of the Court
of Chancery gave them all the land they
were entitled to and that the fence was
in the proper place. The court went on
to speak of the other testimony and al
iuded to that of Abraham Murray, col,
who was very intelligent man and tes-
tilted that years ago he could remember
before the dock had wharfage on it.,
and then the side sloped away from the
present line. The state of the dock in
the days of the Messrs. Moore and its
condition to-day must be carefully con-
sldered, and the whole facts in the case
well weighed. All the witness were in
telligent and evidently conscientious.
If the jury believed that the two docks
are different and that the present line is
on the line of the old dock of Thomas
West, then the defendant is entitled to
verdict of "not guilty." But if they
believed that the plaintiff had proved
their title perfectly and had established
their claim beyond a doubt, then 1t
should be in their favor.