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


DOOr-A Verdict Rendered for tho
Fsaintiff for thu Full Amount.
Atyesterday afternoon week q session of
court, in the case of Pierson vs. the Etnn
INSURANCE. Company, the cross-examina-
Non Of Elisha o. Irwin, the first witness
tor the defence, was resumed. lie snid
he instructed Mr.. Woolley not to give
Mr. Pierson any information in regard to
making out his proof Of loss, ns he be-
loved fraud was being present.
Jsines Woolley, insurance agent, said
he Ind placed insurances for Mr.. Pierson
Of $4,000 on his stock and $3, 500 on his
building. He corroborated much of the
testimony given by Mr.. Irwin in regard
to the actions and statements of Mr. Pier
son Immediately after the FIRE. After
Pierson had said that he had burned the
inventory and could not find the ledger
of 1881, witness told him that he owed it
TO himself TO produce them. The wit
ness said that Frank Piefson, William II.
Persons son, had denied making the
attentions in the books.
Juror Pilling inquired of the witness il,
when issuing policies, the company ex-
pected him to examine the property to be
insured, or to simply take the word of the
owners. He said he was expected to mako
Edward o. Weeks of Wilkesbarre, Pa,
said that in September, 1883, he was n
special agent for the Liverpool, London &
Globe Insurance Company, and came
here to adjust the loss on the Pierson
building, which was insured in the com
pany. Mr.. Pierson told him the fire
originated from the explosion of lamp
in an adjoining building He also said
he had contemplated tearing the building
down either that week or the next, and
erecting new one in its place. The wit
ness also corroborated the evidence of
Mr. Irwin in relation to the subsequent
conferences held with Mr.. Pierson.
William O. Goodrich of Philadelphia,
special agent of the HItna Insurance Com
pany, said he visited Wilmington on the
18th of September, 1882, and saw MIR.
Pierson in company with Mr.. Irwin in
the Hunsberger building. Mr.. Pierson
told him he made the alterations in his
books for the purpose of misleading the
mercantile agencies. MIR. Irwin remarked
that Pierson had told him he had done il
for the purpose of defrauding his brother,
:, and Pierson made no reply.
AT 5.i0 o'clock court adjourned until
9.15 O'Clock Thursday morning.
AS soon as court convened at 920
o'clock Thursday morning, the trisl of
the case of William II. Pierson VS.. the
Etna Insurance Company was resumed.
and the examination Of witnesses for the
) defendant continued.
| Sophia Halliday, n sister of the plaintiff,
tc 4ited that she was the bookkeeper for |
I, the firm of Pierson IL Brother from 1878 |
until some time in June, 1881. Her |
brother George was member of the |
firm, but the business was attended to, |
and transacted by William ii. Pierson.
The witness was asked by Mr.. Bird if |
William II. Pierson had ever ordered her |
to change the figures in the books, for the |
purpose of cheating the insurance com
panies.
Mr.. Nields contended that the question |
was not proper, but after argument the |
court decided that the evidence was adj |
missible, and Mr.. Niolds asked the court |
To note his exceptions. ....-
The witness then continued, and said |
that when the books for 1880 or 1881 |
were made up they showed less than
$4,000 worth of stock ON hand, and
William remarked that ii would be poor
showing in case of fire, and proposed
adding the figure one in front of the FIVE,
but George objected and some words
ensued between them. William, how
ever, carried his point, and the figure was
inserted, making the stock on hand over
$4,000, instead of less than $4,000,
which it actually was. The changed
figures were carried on the books of the
ensuing year, making an incorrect show
ing on them. Mrs. Halliday lives with
her husband at Clayton, and within
few weeks she was called |
upon by her brother William, who asked
her if she remembered about the figures
being changed, and why they were
: changed, when she replied she did that
they were changed for the purpose of de-
ceiving the insurance companies, and he
said that was notIso, and that if any one
should say that on the witness stand that
person would tell most damnable lie
He said to her that the figures were
changed on account of the mercantile
agencies, and that they wsre altered two
years before she took charge of the books
The witness was cross-examined at length
by Mr.. Nields, and denied that she had
ever threatened to do William an injury
If she was called to the witness stand.
George w. Pierson, brother of the
plaintiff, was called by Mr.. Bird, and
stated that from 1876 until the early part
of 1882 he was member of the firm of
Pierson * Brother. He kept the books
until 1878, when they were taken in
charge by his sister Sophia. At no time
while he was in the business did the stock
on hand ever exceed $4,000, and some
times it was as low as 1000 When the
inventory was taken in January, 1882,
the stock on hand amounted to 5,970. So.
The witness then produced n copy
of the inventory, in his brothers.
handwriting, that he had given
him, which showed that the above
figures were correct, but upon ex-
amining the books it was found that tho
amount there was SIS, ,970.S5. The witness
said that under no circumstances could
the stock have been worth that much. All
the goods on hand at the time of his dis
solving partnership with his brother were
placed at their true value, and if they had
not been he would not have submitted to
it. AT that time their value, at cost price,
was less than $4,000. He was present
when his brother asked his sister to
change the figures in the books, and cor
roborated the testimony already given by
her.
Mr.. Niells subjected the witness to
searching cross. examination during which
it was brought out that William H. Pier
son wanted tho figures changed on
account of those in the book only show
ing the cost Price of the goods, which
would not have reimbursed them in the
event of Il fire. The witness denied having
said ut any time that he hated his brother,
and believed that he set fire to his place.
The cross-examinNtlon WAS followed by
an exhaustive redirect examination by
Mr.. Bird, which continued until the usual
noon recess was ordered.
AS soon as proceedings were resumed
in court Mt 2 O'Clock in the afternoon
George w. Pierson again took the stand,
and his redirect examination was con-
tinued by Mr.. Bird. Something having
been said abont paper containing ques-
tions relating to the business which had
been presented to the witness for him TO
sign answers to these questions, one was
produced, but when the witness examined
il he said it was not the same that had
been presented to him by Frank Pierson,
the son of the plaintiff.
Thomas Salnworth carpenter and
builder, who was in Persons place ire.
quently, the last time being about one
month before the fire; did not think the
stock at that time was worth more than
&c., 90 or $4,000, although, as he did not
notice particularly, he could not speak
positively. He had seen goods hauled
away from Persons within the week be-
fore the fire, but did not know where they
were taking them.
James II. Aaron was in Persons the
day before the fire and did not think the
afock on hand xyould he worth mnre than