Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1886-06-03

VI ohtnucA W. faitiSbhAAtf wiz W btio tlliie
of the fire was the foreman for William
II. Pierson. When he showed this 10 the
witness he said that he did not know the
man and had never seen him, but upon
being told who he was said he had made
every effort to find him, and would give
considerable money to meet him.
When this witness left the stand, Mr..
Bird announced that he was abont done,
and Mr.. Bradford addressed the court for
some time on the documentary evidence
which he proposed to place before the
jury, at 9.45 o'clock. Court took recess
until 9.15 o'clock Friday morning.
At the opening of court Friday morning
the defence in the case of Pierson vs.. the
Etna Insurance Company recalled II. S.
Ohristy and asked him what he estimated
the building No. 42l West Front street to
be worth, but the plaintiff objected and
the objection was sustained. The defence
then rested.
In rebuttal the plaintiff called w. H.
Pierson, nephew of w. II. Pierson, who
testified that Frank Pierson was in his
company during all of the day of the fire
until about GAS o'clock In the evening.
Anna W. Hendrickson, sister Of the
plaintiffs first wife, was called and testi-
fed that she lives with Mr.. Pierson, and
that Frank Pierson was at home during
all the day of the fire in company with
his cousin W. II. Pierson, the previous
witness. She said William II. Pierson
went out about 6 o'clock that evening.
Frank Pierson was recalled and said he
was at home all the day of the fire, being
lame from Intel falling on his foot the
day before. He did not leave the house
until about GAS O'Clock in the evening.
William II. Pierson was recalled and in
answer to Mr.. Nields' direct questions
said he did not set fire to the building nor
did he procure any one to do it. He was
in the building during the Sunday after
noon Of the fire, in company with his son,
George G.. and his nephew, Elmer Pierson,
about 8 o'clock. He went in TO get key
of house he owned at No. 1913 West
Seventh street, and the boys went for the
purpose of milking COW which was kept
in the stable. He stayed with them while
they MIXED the COW and all went home
together, reaching home before O'Clock.
They entered the building through
No. 419 West Front street, and
did not go into the building
No. 42l, which adjoins the framed we'll
ing house, at all. He afterwards went out
in search of his wife, who had gone out.
He called first ut the house of Charles
Reese, and then at Horace Rudolph's,
where he met his wife. In company with
his wife and Mrs. Rudolph he went to his
house at 1923 West Seventh, which was
vacant, and went in. While in the yard,
they met George Il. Roberts anil wife,
who live in an adjoining properly, No.
700 Adams street, and afterwards he and
his wife snt down with MIR. nirl Mrs.
Roberts on the front steps of the latter's
house. They returned home soon after s |
o'clock, and in short time aft, rwards |
learned of the fire. He went dow n, and |
when he arrived there his factory was in |
flames.
Elmer Pierson, plaintiffs nephew, cor
roborated the testimony of Mr.. Pierson
in regard to the visit TO tue factory Sum
day afternoon, and was positive Mr..
Pierson was not in that part of the build |
ing known ms No. 421. George W. Pier |
son, the plaintiffs son, also gave cor
roborative testimony.
w. II. Pierson testified that after COM |
ing home with the boys his uncle left the |
house a few minutes after 6 o'clock. |
Frank Pierson and Miss Anna Hendrick- |
son gave similar testimony.
Theodore Stratton saw Mr.. Pierson |
going out Seventh street between Monroe |
and Adams in the neighborhood of G |
O'Clock on the evening of the fire. The |
plaintiff had several other witnesses to |
prove MIR. Persons whereabouts between |
his visit to the factory between and 6
o'clock, and the breaking out of the fire,
but the defence said they would admit |
that he was not at the building after his |
visit in the early evening, and they were
not called.
Mrs. Agnes Robinson said that Mrs.
McCaulley came to her house, two days
after the fire, and said the fire originated |
from old clothes which were piled beside |
the chimney, where the children had
been playing with matches. George
Robinson and Tilghman Anderson, who
were present at the time, corroborated
this testimony.
Henry @. Robinson was called and asked
as TO Mr.. Persons character for integrity
and fair dealing, but the defence objected
rs this was n matter not relative to the
cnse. MIR. Nields contended that char
acter could be proved in case like this,
but without going into an argument he
Mr.. Robinson for the present.
Edwin II. Gayley testified that Mr..
Pierson only used the Hunsburger build
ing for the storage of his stock from the
3lst of August, 1882. CThe fire was on
September Sd, and the defence sought to
prove that he had been storing goods
there for week previous to the fire..
Taylor Boyer, a lad from Philadelphia,
testified that he was visiting William II.
Persons family during the last two weeks
of August, 1882; was in the Hunsburger
building with George and Elmer Pierson
during the last three days of the week
prior TO the fire and there was no mill
work put in until Thursday, when they
began TO unload car load of stuff. None
came in wagons until Saturday. George
e. Pierson corroborated this witness.
Professor William A. Reynolds was
called as an expert book-keeper, and said
he had examined the books of Pierson
and William IL. Pierson from
1874 TO date. Mr.. Bird objected to any
testimony in relation to the books except
in reference to the alterations that had
been proved by the defence. The point
was sustained aud Mr.. Nields abandoned
the books and asked the witness MS to Mr..
Persons reputation for integrity and
honesty. The defence maintained that
this was inadmissible and irrelevant in
this case, on which point Mr.. Bradford
addressed the court at length. He spoke
until o'clock, when the court took IL re-
cess until p. nj.
AT the reassembling of court In the
afternoon, in the case of Plerson vs.. the
Etnn Insurance Company, argument was
resumed upon the attempt of the plaintiffs
counsel to Introduce evidence In support of
the plaintiif's character. Tho court decided
such evidence not admissible.
William II. Pierson was then called and
went over number Of hooks belonging to
The firm Of Pierson Brothers. He gave the
figures representing the stock on hand at
The beginning Of the ycnr ms follows: 1873,
1876, Ss,54I.76; 1877, S5,242.27; 1879,
50, ,54s.24: 1880, $5,Os3.14; 1881, S5,97O.s5.
He said the figure which had been annexed
before the figures for the latter had been
placed there at thesuggestion Of his brother
George, who had it done for the purpose Of
making better showing with the agents Of
Brndstreets Il Dunn's mercantile agencies,
who were pesterlng them for statements.
II was afterwards erased, the erasure being
made before the books were submitted TO
the insurance adjusters,
Mary A. Dawson was called to testify to
conversation she had with Mrs. Halliday
about two years ago, In n house on WASH
lngton street, In reference to this case, but
Mr. Bird objected and she was not heard.
She was asked II she knew the relations az
Isting between Mrs. Halliday and her
brother, William H. Pierson, and said they
were hostile.
The plaintiff here closed, and the defence
here called MIR. Irwin, who testified to alter
ltlons in the ledger of 1879-S1, made since
Il was shown TO him Immediately after the
fire. George W. Plerson was called and
NaaaNN d.