Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1885-10-01
NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURT
THE STATE VERSUS MARTIN H.
ROBINSON.
The Jury brings AZ n Verdict of
Guilty, With n Recommendation
to mercy-FOur license Appiicn-
lions Granteds

| ~ meFcy-Eour hstcenhe Appncu
lions Granfeds
After the opening of court, yesterda
afternoon week, Deputy Attorney -Genera
Biggs announced that Thomas Carty an
George Whitlock Of st. Georges hundred
charged with violating the liquor law
and for whom capiases had been issued
had absconded and could not be found
The witnesses in these cases were thel
discharged.
State VS.. Martin II. Robinson, charge,
with obtaining money under false pre-
lenses. Deputy Attorney General Biggl
| appeared for the State, and the prisoner
conducted his own defense.
| The Rev. Lafayette Marks testified that
Robinson called on him in March last
representing himself as the agent fol
Baird d Mitchell, book agents, and sold
him two books, for $12, payable in
monthly instalments Of so each. He
paid Robinson 90, and meanwhile re-
ceived a printed notice from the firm,
notifying parties to pay no one
but the regular agent of the firm,
who would soon call. He paid the next
instalment to this agent, leaving So due,
and soon after Robinson called, repre-
sented the firm as being in need of money
and agreed to throw off $1.50 if Mr..
Marks would settle in full. On Robinson's
representations that he had ample
authority TO act in the matter, Mr.. Marks
paid him the $3.50.
Cornelius E. Baird, of Baird & Mitchell,
said Robinson was not authorized to col
lect any money for the firm, and they
cont nOukol de An gtn
them not to pay Robinson any money, us
they had found that he was q dishonest
man. Robinson knew that he was not
authorized to collect for the firm, as they
had talked about the matter.
The prisoner put Mr.. Baird through a
rigid cross examination, in manner that
displayed considerable ability and a
thorough familiarity with court practice.
In the course of his examination he in
quired what was paid for books when
bought from the publishing houses. The
answer was that on $6 books the price
was So, with q discount of 60
per cent when bought in lots of SO or
more, and 55 per cent when bought in
lots of less than so.
The State rested and the prisoner called
DIR. j. p. Burwell, who testified that he
bought book from Robinson, and after
wards received Baird & Mitchell's postal
card notifying him not to pay him any
money. He showed the card to Robinson,
who said he would not work any longer
for ''such a d-n firm"
The prisoner called Mr.. Baird to the
stand and asked him why he kept him
(Robinson) in his employ after he had, as
he alleged, learned of his rascality.
Robinson also exhibited a letter from
Baird, dated April Goth, asking him to
remain in the frGl's employ. Mr.. Baird
said that Robinson owed the firm money,
and they desired to get it out of him on
commissions ON sales.
DIR. @. Drum Funk testified that he
would have continued to pay Robinson,
even after receiving Bnird & Mitchell's
postal card, but Robinson said he would
not receive it.
Robinson here closed his case and made
an address to, the jury. After speaking
nearly half an hour he discovered chat
several of his witnesses for whom attach
ments had been issued had arrived, and
he asked that they be heard. As matter
of indulgence the court allowed him to
| reopen his case, and Charles H. Lane was
called. The prisoner asked him if he
knew Mr.. Baird's reputation in the COM
munity for truth and veracity. He said
he only knew what friend of his told
him, but the chief justice said this kind
of testimony would not do. Edwin f.
Eckel was asked similar question and
he said he did not.
Robinson then closed his case again
and resumed his address TO the jury,
claiming that he had right to collect the
money on all 80 days sales. He made a
remarkably able and ingenious address,
speaking until $50 o'clock.
Mr.. Biggs, for the State, made no ad-
dress further than to read to the Jury the
statute against. the offense of obtaining
money under false pretenses. At 5.25
o'clock the jury retired.
l.. O. Vandegrift,' Esq, called up the
Fitzpatrick q McGurgan cases, in an ap-
plication for the disposal of the money
now in the hands of the court, to their
laborers, for work done in October last.
Testimony showing that payment for
October was still due the laborers, was
heard, the foreman's time-book being
exhibited and identified. The order of
the court in the premises was deferred.
The jury in the case of Martin H.
Robinson did not come until 9.35 o'clock
ut night, when they returned verdict of
guilty, with o recommendation TO mercy
Sentence was deferred, and court adj
journed until 10 o'clock Thursday
morning.
After the opening of court on Thursday
Martin II. Robinson, found guilty of
obtaining money under false pretences,
was sentenced to pay fine of $40 and
costs of prosecution, and be imprisoned
one month.
Hon. Charles B. Lore applied 20 the
court on behalf of Ann l.. Lippincott, for
n rule on Benjamin +. Lippincott, her
husband, to show cause why he should
not be made to contribute TO her support
and pay her counsel fees, in her defense
of his suit for divorce. John Biggs,
ESD, counsel for Mr.. Lippincott, snid he
would make answer tomorrow, at which
time the rule was made returnable.
In the libel suit of William b. Barton,
ESQ.,, vs.. Francis Scheu, editor of the
FSeie FreSse, IL. II. Pennington, Esq,
Scheu's counsel, on Monday week, made a
motion for ruls on the plaintiff to show
ciltlse why the bail demanded in the case
should not be reduced. The rule was re-
turnable on Thursday, and as the sheriff
returned the plaintiff non inventues
Barton having recently left the city, the
discharge of the defendant in the case was
ordered.
A long discussion then ensued upon n
motion of Thomas Davis, Esq, for the
setting aside of the sherilf's sale of the
personal property of L. @. Fennilnore of
Appoquinimink hundred, on the ground
that tho sheriif's inventory and apprnise-
ment, under which the sale was con-
Quoted, had been made by Fennimore,
the defendant, instead of by two
sworn appraisers,as required by law. The
motion was opposed by Bates & Harring-
ton, on the ground that the course fol-
lowed in this appraisement had been the
almost universal custom for years. The
discussion lasted until 1925 o'clock and
the matter was held under advisement.
A jury was next drawn in the case of
State vs. james A. Lofiand, charged with n
felonious assault upon Eliza A. Goif.
Deputy Attorney General Biggs for the
state and Harry Sharpley, ESD, for the
defense.
Eliza A. Goff, the prosecuting witness,
took the stand and testified that the
prisoner made an indecent assault upon
her, on June 2Sth last, near her home, ut
the residence, near Christiana, about
11.30 O'Clock ut night.
AT 1855 O'Clock, pending her examina-
tion, court adjourned until 8 o'clock in the
afternoon.
On the reassembling of court at
O'Clock, in the afternoon, the case of
James Lofand, charged with assault and
battery upon Eliza A. Goff with intent to
commit an outrage was resumed. The