The daily gazette., 1882-12-02
THE SUIT OF SANDERS.
THE CASE SOMEWHAT EN-
LiVENED TO-DAY.
THE DEFENSE OPENS ITS SIDE.
An Effort to be Made to show Deliberate
Fraud to Cheat Creditors-The TestI-
mony In Detail.

mony was that while Clerk of the Peace he
had issued license to L. Bertha Sanders to
carry on the dry goods business ut the stand
formerly occupied by her father.
Ex Sheriff Clark was recalled and re-
iterated the fact that when he made the levy
on the stock of goods James A. Sanders was
not In the store and had to be sent for.
When informed that unless the claims held
by him (the sheriff. were satisfied the stock
would be levied upon, James A. Sanders de-
clared that the goods belonged to his son,
II. /. Sanders. The parties went out
peaceably when the execution was served.
Joseph Nevins said heected as agent for
several large dry goods nuns in Philadel-
phia and had done business for them with
James A., Bertha and Henry L. Sanders, all
of whom he knew very we'll. In one case
James A Sanders ordered certain goods and
Rertha ignored the sale; the aggregate sales
to Bertha were about $1,000, TO Henry L.
Sanders about 81 900. ceased selling goods
to j. A. Sanders some years before, as his
credit was In bad repute. When cross
examined by Mr.. Lore witness said his
general recollection was that Bertha was
consulted; did not member being taken
in by James A. Sanders to consult with her
about the buying OF the goods; did not
know what transpired; did not remember
selling goods TO Henry L. Sanders personally;
had seen him in the store; when he went in
to sell goods he went to James A. Sanders:
most of the buying and selling was dole by
James A. Sanders; recognized Henry l..
Sanders as the owner; one Of his employers
(Mr. Granger) to d him so. Witness said
he had no recollection of trying to induce
William Lynch to sell goods to Bertha
Sanders on the representation that II he did
SO he would recover some of the money he
had lost ON James A. Sanders.
E. N. Vallandigham, editor Of Esery
Evening, was called to prove the insertion
OF several advertisements in his paper rela-
tive to the sale in 1879, but could not tell
who ordered or paid Tor them.
Henry L. Sanders, on being recalled,
stated that when the 5000 bond was drawn
up. a draft for $4,000 was given him and
81, 900 in cash.
When the s., 900 bond was made check
was handed his father for 81 500, a portion
of the consideration of the paper. The
witness was frequently at his fathers store,
and was there on the occasion of the first
sheriff's sale. The stock was sold to NJ. E
Sanders and by her to e. Bertha Sanders |;
Bertha gave directions respecting the busi-
ness and at all times acted as owner had
seen her make purchases and keep the
books and SO far as known she signed the
checks; when the business was transferred
to witness the introduction to Mr.. Granger
was made by his iather; the purchased
| goods and the sales purporting to be made
to him, amounting to some $4,000, were
made to him and he recognized
the bills and the memoranda made
/ by him of the amount; he personally
bought many of these goods without con-
sulting anybody; his father, under his in
structions, made the greater part of the
| purchases gave his father written authority
| to act in his absence; the business was at
| all times subject to his own oversight, and
| he kept a strict account of It; at the time
the Sheriff made the last seizure witness
was IN New York city; reached home at
midnight the same day during the next
few days witness consulted Mr.. Spruance I;
could not replevin the goods because he
could not find security on returning found
the store in the hands of Sheriff Clark; It
was closed and locked witness could not
| get in did not ask to be allowed to go In
the store; Sheriff Clark never refused ad-
| mission.
Upon being closely cross examined by Mr..
| Lore the witness stated that when he took
| the store his father was In destitute circum-
stances and he employed him to exercise a
general supervision in witness's absence
| without reference to salary-he merely un-
dertook to look after his fathers family;
| there was no amount limited at all that his
father was TO have as compensation; did
/ not limit him as to kind, quality or
amount of what he might take out
| of the store. II the business was satisiac-
/ tory 1t did not matter to others what clerks
were there or how many there were he
| went with Bertha several times to Philadcl-
| phia to buy goods had seen Bertha make
purchases when his father was In the store
and when he was not in the store had seen
statesmen go to both Bertha and his father tO
sell goods during Bertha's ownership
| could not specify the time had not seen
| Bertha assume any authority or give direc-
| tions to the clerks other than for the placing
| of the stock.
THIS MORNINGS PRoCEEDINas-THE SAN
DER's Casa TILT BETWEEN ooUN-
Sell.
At the opening of court this morning the
cross examination of Henry l.. Sanders was
resumed by Mr.. Lore. When that gentle
man asked witness why he did not get re-
| plevin when the goods alleged to be his
| were sold by the sheriff the witness replied
| that he couldn't get the necessary security.
Mr.. Lore asked if he had made an effort tC
obtain such security, and when witness said
he had but was unable 20 get it, the ques
ton was asked why those to whom he ap
piled had refused.
At this junction Mr.. Spruance entered
objection to the interrogatory, Mr.. Lore
| admitting that bis object was to prove
| fraud, upon which the whole defense was
based. Mr.. Spruance then declared that
MIR. Lore's was "an unfair propos ition and
most shameful ayowal-an attempt thus
to smirch the honesty of the witness. u
Judge Houston thought Mr.. Spruance Ha'
right.
Mr.. Lore thought he had right to ask
why witness couldn't get security, inasmuch
as tina matter OF the repleyin had been In
troduced by MIR. Nields. His actions, he re-
marked, turning to Mr.. Spruance, were not
shameless, but instead touched q spot OF
tenderness in the case.
Mr.. Spruance replied with some energy
by saying it was preposterous for the at
torney on the other side to attempt to prove
what the populace thought Of the busines:
standing of the witness. The latter had
admitted that he could not get credit, but
why he could not was to great extent
Irrelevant.
Finally Mr. Lore waived his question nnd
witness stepped down.
Sheriff Clark was recalled aud asked K
what amount he was indemnitied by the foul
creditors under which he sold the store
goods. Objection was made and sustained
The prosecution then, at 40 rested theil
' case.
j. II. Hoffecker, ESQ, for the defense
briefly addressed the jury, saying he woult
prove that Sheriff Clark was not guilty o
, trespass and that the whole matter was {
, scheme on the part of James A. Sanders II
/ EdetfrAiId- honest creditors and cheat them on
i Sof their bills. All preparations ha'
been carefully made to cheat his creditors