The daily gazette., 1882-12-04
DRAGGING IT'S III TlNGTH.
THE SANDERS CASE STILL
GOING ON.
NEWS OF SATURDAY AND TODAY
The Suit Against SherifClark still Before
Tho Court and no show Of d Near End
Apparent.

At the afternoon sesslon Saturday the
cross-examnaiion Of Thomas Belcher was
continued tor few minutes. lie said he
fret bid $4,000 for the stock OF Sanders
store other bills were made until witness
finally bid So 800, which the Sheriff would
not accept.
VIM. Lynch OF Philadelphia, one of the
execution creditors, sworn James A.
Sanders deult With me IN 1877 and 1873; in
the first year he bought about 81 900 worth
Of goods and in the second about 81, 700;
Sanders had good credit with my firm; first
knew ofhis embarrassment on February .,
1870, when note OF Sanders went to pro-
test; afterwards sold no goods DO any oi the
Sanders; came down to Wilmington with
Mr. Belcher, and with him examined the
stock; thought IL worth about 50 $40 and
advised the Sheriff 10 take It. knowing then
IL would not satisfy the full amount OF
claim; goods were much shop-worn and u
varied assortment.
Mr.. HoiIecker offered in evidence the
Judgment records against James A. Sanders
ard the Sheriii's Judgment ddckets. The
court ruled that they were irrelevant, and
Mr. Lore wished an exception.
When MIR. Lore called another witness,
Justice Wootten laughinglv inquii ed "Mr.
Lore is that room full. too 2"
Robert Mills was sworn and asked IL
James A Sanders had not said to him that
he had brought his son Henry home from
st. Louis, and that the latter was sick and
had cost his father a great deal Of money.
Mr., Spruance objected ON the ground that
james A. Sanders had said In answer to the
eame question, that he did not recollrct
having said 30. The objec lion was sustained.
Mary e. Hickey, sworn-WuB saleswoman
In James A Sanders store from the spring
Of 1877 until the day of Sheriff Clark's sale
in 1882 on the day OF the sal by Sheriff.
Pyle witness got to store about y o'clock
aud was told to go 10 Mr.. SaiAdcr's house ;
went there but found no one who wanted to
see her about 10 30 was sent for TO come to
the store went there but could not get In /;
then went home by orders Of Mr.. Sanders /;
next day WIS ut The store DIS usual, all
clerks being in their accustomed places !;
Iames A. Sanders took his p ace at the
desk; oil drunmers went 10 him to
sell goods all clerks went to him for Orders
and directions: never raw Bertha buy
any goods; was not employed by any ont
but james A. 5 Anders; he paid wages be-
tore and after tl sale; IN iacr he was the
same all through the business; was never
told there was change of ownership; pre-
sumed there wa by change OF name on
wrapping paper. cards and hand bills; my
personal relations were Intimate with Bertha
aud during the thirteen months of her
alleged ownership she never said she was
the owner of the place: the first thing
knew OF the transfer to Henry l.. was SET
Ing box come marked for him; day Of
transfer to Henty L., Bertha was very per-
vous and after sgbing papeF IN the stare
took my hand as she passed aud said,
"Thank gnedness that Is all over"
Inasmuch as the counsel for the plaintiff
had objected to the question put by Mr..
Lore as to what Bertha had said, the
answer ere ted some laughter, as more was
undoubtedly expected. At this point jus
tice Wootten remarked "We'll have to
have another Thanks. living day after this
trial Is over"
Examination being resumed Miss Hickey
said that when Henry L. was supposed "a
be In charge, the business went ON as usual,
aud at the same time WAS in business III
New York never saw Henry l.. give any
orders.
At o'clock court was adjourned until 10
O'Clock Monday morning.
THIS MORNINGS SESSION.
Court met this morning at o o'clock, and
the SanIers case was resumed.
Mary e. Hickey recalled, and the diree'
examination continued by Mr.. Lore. Inc
question was asked whether Mrs. sanders
| wife OF James A., had not just prior 't
the flrst sheriil's sale, bought an unusua
quantity of goods at her husbands st'r r..
MIR, NieIds objected upon The grounds o
irrelt vancy and an exteuded discussion oi
argument upon the matter took place.
| Mr.. Hoifcckrr contendtd that the answer
TO the question was necessary To prove
fraud on The part OF james \. Sanders
Mr.. Spruancc argued that even II Jamei
A. Sanders had sur eptitibusly remove.
| goods from the store II Didn't effect th'
parties in the suit now pending, and If frau6
had hccn pcrpelrated IL was against Mar,
f: Sanders. The fraudulent action oil Jamei
A. Sanders had not the slightest connection
| IN the matter.
The court ruled In favor Of Mr.. Lore in {
lengthy reason or so doing, ON the grount
that james A. Sanders, as agent Tor tn,
partits alleged to own the store and stock
vas responsible for his aetiohs which hai 4
hearing upon the issue at stake. MIR
Snruance here no,ed an exception
Miss Hickey then, in reply TO tile question
said that Mrs. Sanders had procured laIg'
quantities OF goods. notably table linens
small wares, trimmings, eollurs, etc. Ih'
reason her unusual purchases we're notice
was because she was geIrrally yer,
sparing buyer. At the Tune OF oneril
Clark's sale there was someoi the stoek u
H." store wbicl, had been there when Sheriff
pyI,.,s sale took place, such as silks
The REORGANIZATION OF witness hegal
RI Inv Mir. Spruauce. The stock o
the store was review ed and kept up by Ber
tina Sanders to the same amount as geber
'liy carrie nv lanes A. Sander. All lh
rngds "iy came a, the name OH f. B. Sanders
WAGES were pad In money and punctuali
on SATURDAYS. Do not know who ooush
goods iu Philadelphia.