Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1886-05-27

morning after the fire and gave direction
to have the debris cleared away and III
place made ready for the adjusters whe
they came. This work was begun ut once
The stock appeared to be badly burned. II
notified the company of the fire.
Afford Pierson, salesman for WillinI
ii. Pierson, testified that IN the beginnin
of 1882 he took an account of stock i
the factory. He was aided OCCASIONAL
in the work by Samuel O. Vandegrift, an
the record of the inventory was placed i
the book by William FL. Pierson. To th
best of his recollection there were betweel
1000 and 5000 doors in the building O
the time. They run in size from 9 feet b
feet, 10 inches in width, and G TO Z fee
in length. The witness, in the course o
a long cross-examination, described th
size and arrangement Of the building an,
the distribution Of the contents.
Frank Pierson testified to making plo
OF the premises. The plot was exhibited
identified and explained. He said it wa
made few days after the fire, and tn,
interior arrangements detailed were draw
from recollection. The outside lines wer,
made from measurements. He said h,
was only II years old ut the time, but wa
thoroughly familiar with the building
having been ar )und the place from child
hood.
Mr.. Nields offered TIE plot in evidence
and Mr.. Bird objected. The court de
cided that the plot would be received al
evidence of the outlines of the building
but not as to the interior arrangements
Mr.. Nields said these would be established
by subsequent testimony. The witness
also identified plot showing the front
elevation of the building, which he said
was correct representation. II wat
offered in evidence and admitted, as was
also a sectional view of the west wall Of
the building No. 421 West Front street
which, with the adjoining building, com.
| prised Mr.. Persons establishment.
At LOS o'clock court took recess until
3 p. m.
At 1880 o'clock the jury in the replevin
case of Samuel ID. Forbes vs.. ex.Sherifl
James Martin came into court with q
verdict for the defendant for the full
value of the machinery repleyined-$475
amounting, with interest to S502. so.
The jury was polled, at Mr.. Spruance's
request, and each member assented to
| the verdict.
This jury and all others forming the
first panel were discharged from any fur
Their attendance ut this term of court.
At the reassembling OF court, in the
afternoon, the case of William IL. pierson
| vs.. tho Altna Insurance Company was re-
| sumed, and Frank Pi5rson, witness for the
| plaintiff, was recalled. He testified that In
| january, 1882, an inventory was taken OF
the stock on hand in the establishment OF
William II. Pierson, and he copied the
marks on each pile of sash, doors and
blinds and put them in book. A book
was shown him which he identified us the
book In which he made the entries. He
said 1t took him several days to copy the
figures given him, and that the inventory,
to the best OF his knowledge, was correct In
every respect.
George IL. Nipple of Lock Haven, Pa, a
manufacturer Of sash, doors, blinds, &e.,
testified that William II. Pierson was one of
his customers, and that In 1882 he shipped
him large quantities of stuff, making ship
ments nearly every month. These shipments
he detailed in value, as follows: February
Goth, $G03.50; March 23d, $l0ii.4D; April
2Sth, ~ ,530.67; June 18th, 1928 SO; August
9th, 5946.77: August Esd, 81, 1871. He
visited Mr.. Pierson frequently, the last visit
being made during July or August, 1889, at
which time he was satisfied from what he
saw, that MIR. Persons stock was worth
from 10000 to $4,000. He noticed par
ticulAlly ut this time, as Mr.. Pierson was
then in his debt for considerable amount,
and he took notice, SO as to sec that there
was stock enough on hand to pay the
amount OF his claim. On cross-examination
witness said he thought he furnished the
largest portion of the goods handled by Mr..
Plerson, and identified bills of goods
shipped amounting to SG,126.52, but could
not cay that they represented all the stufl
sent by him to Mr.. Pierson during that year.
otg nd hnt HnA
brought goods during 1882 to the amount of
50, 733.42 from John Dubois, all of which had
been received through his factory. Frank
Pierson was then recalled and testified to
these purchases from Dubois, his knowledge
being derived from the fact that he was
bookkeeper for William II. Pierson.
During the examination OF this witness q
messenger came into the court room with II
dispatch for William +. Smalley of Chris
tiana, one of the jurors, announcing that
his mother had just died ut Bridgeton, N. j..
lie communicated the information to the
court and askeh 10 be excused until Mon
day. The chief justice informed counsel in
the case of tine Information contalhed In the
dispatch, and Mr.. Bird, for the defence, an
nounced n willingness to go ahead with ii
jurors to the completion OF the Casa. Mr..
Nields, for the plaintiff, objected, where
upon further action In tho case was post
poned until 10 O'Clock Monday morning, to
which time the Jury was discharged.
On the application of Andrew L. Sanb I'm 4,
ESD. the application for rule 10 show
cause why a judgment entered against her
ia cause against Martha @. Reynolds
should not bs opened for review, which was
made returnable yesterday, was extended
until Thursday next.
At $50 o'clock. court adjourned until 10
o'clock Monday morning.
At the opening of court, Monday,
the rolls of the second and special panels
OF Jurors were called.
The roll of the jury in the case of
William II. Pierson VS.. the H1tna Insur-
ance Company was called, but Juror
William +. Smalley was absent. The chief
Justice rend letter sent by Juror Smalley
to Benjamin Nields, ESD, stating that his
mothers funeral would take place at 2
O'Clock Monday afternoon, and therefore
could not be present until 1890 O'Clock
Tuesday. Counsel on both sides agreed
to 90 on with the case with IL jurors, and
the balance of the special jurors drawn to
try the second of the insurance cases were
discharged until Thursday, September
23d, when the second case will be started
upon,
f. z. Bradley, steuographic reporter
from the courts of Philadelphia, WIS in
troduced for tho purpose of taking the
testimony in the case, and counsel on
both sides agreed that he could act for
the purpose without being sworn.
The case was then resumed, and Mr..
/ Nields offered in evidence the proofs of
loss by the fire, submitted by the plaintiff
| to the insurance company. Mr.. Bradford
| objected to the paper being accepted as
more than the act of the plaintiff in doing
what was required of him by his policy
| TO submit his estimate of losses sustained,
Frank Pierson was recalled and identi-
| fed bills submitted to him MS bills OF
merchandise furnished from John Dubois
from january LIST, 1882, to the time of the
| fire, and telegram from Dubois, under
date of September It'll, 1882, stating that
the amount of goods furnished from
January LIST to date was So, 753.42. Bills
rendered by John S. LOOMS were also
| identified, amounting to $3,296.2O, for
the same parlod. Both were offered in
evidence and admitted together with a
detailed statement of all the goods bought
during this time, to which the defence
offered no objection. An inventory OF
| goods furnished by Wilson a. Nipple al
cost price, freight and hauling not in
| cluded, was also offered. To the latter
Mr.. Bird objected, because part of the
figures only were furnished by Wilson 4
Nipple. Tho balance having been
supplied by the witness and
because the inventory differed from
the estimated valueof thegoods destroyed
as furnished by the plaintiff to the insur.
ance company Immediately after the fire.
The inventory was admitted with the pro.
viso that the witness identify the articles
furnished, item by item, and state the