The Washington critic., 1890-02-06
STOLEN SEAL GL0AKS.
TESTIMONY REGARDING THEM IN
THE SHOPLlFrERs' CASE.

Detective RaHTs Evld, zee Cannot De
Tpset--Legal webs 'asipg Around
the Light-EIngered Ladies--Mer-
chants on tho stand.
In continuation Of the shop-lifting
ease yesterday afternoon Mr.. b. II.
Stinemetz was placed on the stand and
identified the sealsldn cloak produced
in evidence by the number on the tag,
$3.50. He said that this number com
pared with the number on the invoice
that he received from the firm from
whom he made his purchases, and
that the value was $3.50.
He could not identify any one,
but he remembered seeing two
ladies standing in a position in his store
that aroused his suspicion, on the day
the cloak was taken. The cloak, he
said, had not been sold to his knowl-
edge, and, had IL been, he most GER
tainly would have known it, as it would
not have been an ordinary sale.
Counsel for the defense demanded
the production Of the invoice as the
best evidence, but Mr.. Lipscomb said
he could get along without Il, and II
they wanted il they could send for IT,.
Mr.. Stinemetz had positively identi-
fed the cloak as his prop,
erty and that was all that
was necessary. Mr.. Stinemetz
concluding, said that the weather was
very warm at that time In December in
which the cloak was taken, and he sur
misses that the cloak was carried out of
the store on the ladies' arms.
TRYING TO UPSET RAFF.
In the opening this morning Detec-
tive Raft was recalled to the stand and
an effort was made to upset him on the
testimony given yesterday, but without
effect. b. II. Stinemetz, jr., identified
the cloak produced in co,lrtas the prop
erty of the firm. He, however, as an
expert, pronounced the stolen garment
an ulster and not q dolman, as al
leg ed in court yesterday.
A variance on the question as to
whether the sealskin stolen was q
newmarket" ulster" "dolman' or
"hangabout' mixed up the witness and
| he retired from the stand.
Mr.. s. w. Stinemetz, also a member
in evidence by the number, and he
knew that on the night of the 18th of
December there were only two cloaks
of this description found in the
store, where there ought to have
been three. "Our first attention
was called to the loss by Detec-
| tive Raft" testified the witness,
"and we knew that the garment was
| missing by reference to the cash-book.
On the 18th day of December the
largest cash sale made was $40, and the
value of the cloak taken was $3.50"
SUBJECTED TO CLOSE CROSS EXAMINA.
| TIoN.
Miss Jessy Sweeny, an employee in Mr..
| Steinmetz's establishment, defined the
distinction between a jacket coat and
newmarket. She was subjected to a
very clever cross examination without
wavering. So did also Miss Laugguth
a clerk in the same establishment
The matron at the Police Headquar
ters testified to searching the shop
lifters on the 11th of December ant
finding them attired in the necessary
garments appertaining to their profes
sion. Mrs. Friday had on dress with
pleated front and combination OF
false pockets and mysterious openings
not common to the dresses worn II
these days. AFTER they were confined
in the. station house." testified Mrs
Pennifield, 'the skirts worn by Mis-
Friday were found in the alley beneath
the window occupied by her. Thi
skirt was produced and the lengthy
pockets. although somewhat tatteret
and torn, with view to destroying any
evidence, demonstrated to the jury t
what purpose the garment had been ap
piled.
Sterling Gait explained to the jury
as to the appearance of the defendant
in the store on the 18th of Decembe
last, when diamond horseshoe scarf
pins were found missing. He identi
fed the pins in evidence by the mum
bers, which he said were manufacture,
at home by the house.
Here there was very studied effor
at Mysteries by the so-called Lilly Fri
day, but beyond little commotion il
the courtroom there was no desired eff
feet.
Live remarks were indulged by tn
counsel on both sides in this conueC
tion, and Judge Bingham suggeste
that it might facilitate progress in tn
trial by dispensing with some of them
Mr.. Gait proved to be an excellen
witness, and submitted to lombard
ment from the team on the defens
without materially changing his ORIG
inal testimony.