Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1886-05-27
aeoroe McKay and Henry M. Mullop

l
At $40 O'Clock court adjourned unit
10 O'Clock yesterday morning.
/ Immediately after tho opening of cour
, yesterday, Mr.. Nields, counsel for th,
! plaintiff in the case of William H. Pier
son VS.. the Etna Insurance Company an
/ nounced that the plaintiff would rest his
J case, without Offering more testimony, q,
was contemplated when court adjourned
} last evening. Messrs. Bird and Bradford
counsel for the defendant, retired fol
consultation, and on returning Mr.. Brad
ford addressed the court. He said the
plaintiff had offered, rs one of the proofs
of his loss, and on which hir case largely
depended, the inventory of the amount OF
stock on hand January LIST, 1882. The
defence expected to prove that the inven-
tory was in large part fraud, and they
therefore asked the plaintiff to offer in
evidence the ledger and journal of the
firm of Pierson d Brother for the years
1880 and 1881, promising to waive all
objections.
Mr. Bird said notice had been served
on the other side to produce the books,
which had been done, but if the defence
examined them they would then be evil
dence for the defence, even if it could be
shown that they had been altered and
mutilated. He asked the other side, in
all fairness, to offer them in evidence.
Mr.. Nields said it was unusual for
counsel on one side to direct counsel on
the other side how to conduct his case,
and declined to accede to the requests.
Mr.. Bird then made the opening adj
dress to the Jury for the defence. He said
they would prove that the defendant COM
pany was one of the best aud strongest
insurance organizations in the country
that the plaintiff insured his stock in
| four companies, and his real estate in
one and that ON his building, for which
he could not get an estimate of $500, he
placed an insurance of $500, making n
total insurance of over $4,000. The
companies sent their agents here, after tho
fire, to settle the losses, but the moment
| they came they found some evidences of
fraud, which thickened by the words
from the plaintiffs own mouth, until
the conviction was forced upon
them that it was a gross and
Infamous fraud. He said that the plain
tiff first said he had burned his inventory
and lost the ledger of 1881, until Mr..
Woolley called him aside and told him he
owed it to himself to produce the in
ventory and book, when he produced
them within 20 minutes and admitted that
he had lied about them. He said they
would prove the plaintiff had grossly mis-
stated his values, and that the week pre-
vious to the fire had been spent in re-
moving goods from the factory to the
Hunsberger Building. He also said the
defence would prove beyond doubt that
the fire broke out in the Pierson factory,
and show by the inmates of the house
adjoining that they saw the fire in the
factory before they began to move their
goods.
After Mr.. Bird concluded his opening
Mr.. Bradford served notice on plaintiffs
counsel toproduce the policy of insurance
for $3, 500 on the Pierson building, in the
Liverpool, London & Globe Company.
Mr.. Nields promptly produced the policy
and Mr.. Bradford offered it in evidence. Mr..
Nields objected. Mr.. Bradford said the
defence expected to prove incendiarism
aud fraud, and the policy was necessary,
IS the amount of insurance was greatly in
excess of what they would prove the
nuild ng TO be worth. The offer of the
policy iu evidence was for the purpose of
showing motive.
Mr.. Nields said the policy had no bear
ing whatever on the case and that it
should not be admitted.
The evidence was ruled inadmissible by
the majority of the courtithe chief justice
dissenting. The defence asked that an
exception to the ruling be noted.
Elijah G. Irwin, vice-president of the
Fire Association of Philadelphia, said
that in September, 1882. he was general
agent of the Phoenix insurance company
of Hartford, and visited Wilmington two
days after the fire at Persons factory.
In company with Mr.. Woolley he called
on Mr.. Pierson at the Hunsberger build
ing. Mr.. Pierson said the stock was en-
tirely destroyed; that he had taken an iu-
ventory the previous January and that his
books and papers were not burned. They
then visited the ruins, and on the way
Pierson remarked that if the fire had
kept off few days there would have
been no loss, as he intended to tear down
and erect new building. He also re-
marked that he had been accused
of burning his building, and wit
ness replied that he need
not mind it, rs some people were
fond of saying unpleasant things. When
asked TO the origin of the fire, he said it
was caused by the explosion of lamp
in the building adjoining. Ire Thursday
following witness returned to Wilmington,
in company with d. O. Weeks of the
Liverpool, London and Globe. In COM
pany with Mr.. Woolley they called on |
Mr., Pierson at the Hunsberger Building.
On being asked for his inventory Mr.. |
Pierson said he had destroyed it. On |
examining the hooks he noticed the inter
polation of the figure / in the item Of |
stock valuation, and change in the
journal of William H. Persons assets |
from $15,O90.27 to 1926, 090.27-the |
alteration of the 1 into 2l
being very apparent. Witness asked |
Mr.. Pierson why he had added $4,000 |
on his books he hesitated and appeared |
to be much worked up, the perspiration |
standing out on his forehead in large |
beads. He admitted that he had altered |
the books and gave as a reason that his |
brother took advantage of him in closing |
their business, and he had taken $4,000 |
off the value of the stock in making the |
inventory, and after the fire he had the |
figures altered back to the correct valua- |
ton. He said his son Frank made the |
alterations. Pierson said he remembered |
distinctly burning the inventory one day |
in January in his Office stove. Witness
suggested, in the absence of the inven-
tory, 10 go back to the ledger of 1881, |
but after n search around the office |
it could not be found. Afterwards wit |
ness and Mr.. Weeks went up to Mr.. |
Woolley's office and soon after they ar |
rived there Mr.. Pierson came in with the |
inventory. He said he had told lie |
when he said he destroyed il. The in.
ventory had the appearance of papers
going through fire, but Pierson said it |
had been kept at his house. Pierson
asked that the inventory be given back to |
him, but he declined. He advised Pier |
son to get the ledger of 1881. The fol-
lowing week he again came down and |
saw the ledger of 1881, which he found |
to be scratched and erased so much |
that he declined to examine it.
He then told Pierson that he would
neither deny nor admit the company's
liability for the insurance, and that Pier
son should present his claim according to
the terms of his policy. At the next visit,
in company with Mr.. Goodrich, Pierson
sail the figures were altered before the
fire, and it was done for the purpose of
deceiving the mercantile agencies, and
said nothing when reminded that he had
previously said he made the alterations
for the purpose of getting even with his
brother.
Pending rigid ross-examination of
the witness by counsel for the plaintiff,
the court, at O'Clock, took recess until
3 p. m.
I'm Limbo for Stealing.
Henry Sharner was arrested on Satur