Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-02-12

car shops and surroundings, which
upon being produced he identified. He
described the shop and how the benches
are located and also thesheighth of the
windows. He said it would have been
impossible for the boy Daniel Wilcox to
have seen through the window as he
testified he did.
William Vernon was the next wit
ness and he testified that he is employed
in the same shop with Sporel, as a car
builder. He works ON the next bench
and knows him well. On January 18th
Spoerl went out as soon as the whistle
blowed. The witness ate his dinner and
went out about 1928 o'clock to report.
He returned at 1910 o'clock and met
Spoerl going in the shop. 70 the best
of his knowledge and belief he did not
think Spoerl could have been in the
shop from the time he went out until he
met him going in. It would not have
been possible for the things to have hap
pened that Mary Wilcox testified to.
The windows were very dirty and no
one could see in from the outside, He
did not believe it possible for any one
to recognize person from the outside.
There has never been any chairs in the
shop, and the witness, the same as the
other men, sat on boxes to eat their
dinner.
Frank McMullen, another employee,
stated that on January 9TH he was
engaged in cleaning a car in the same
shop where Spoer was at work. When
the whistles blew, at IL o'clock, Spoerl
went out and into the varnish shop.
The witness went home to his dinner,
and was certain that no children were
in the shop from 11,30 O'Clock until he
went out. They sometimes came in for
rulers about 1i.45 o'clock, but never
stayed until the whistles blew.
William X, Toppin, a painter em-
ployed in the shops, testified that on
Wednesday, January 18th, Spoerl came
in the varnish room about two minutes
after IL O'clock. The witness was about
to have game of cards with him, when
Joice, who had not been working in the
morning came in, and played with
Spoerl until time TO report.
Charles L. Barton, Charles =. Mitchell,
William Toppin, Richard NJ. Virgins,
Frank Stricher, Henry Il. Ennis, Patrick
Joice and John j. Carr, each testified to
the same effect, and Judge Cullen, who
was trying the case, said that he did not
wish to hear any more on that point
Henry Greedy was called and testified
to Loves bad reputation, and said that
he has known him for a year or more,
and would not believe anything he said.
AT o'clock court adjourned until $50
The Spoerl case was resumed as soon
as court convened at $50 o'clock Tues
day afternoon, and the examination of
witnesses for the defence continued.
John Mccullough testified that he is
a time keeper at the Remington machine
works. Loves commenced working for
the company on Tuesday, January 9th,
digging foundation, but he did not
know whether or not he went out at
noon on Wednesday, 7th inst.
John Woodward was certain that
Loves was at work all day Wednesday,
January 7th, and that he was not away
from the works.
Mifiin Caney, another employe of the
Remington Company, said that Loves
started in to work digging a foundation
on January 9th, and he was positive
that he was at work all day on the 18th.
| He brought his dinner with him and did
| not go out during the noon hour. As
he had heard that Loves had bad
record, he kept a sharp eye on him.
Charles Armstrong testified that Loves
came to work at Remington's on Tues
day, January 9th, to help dig a founda-
ton. He brought his dinner and the
witness was positive that he was not
away fromfthe works on January nth,
from the time he came in the morning
until he quit at night. He also kept a
sharp eye on Loves, as he had heard
rumors that he could not be trusted.
| George Mccoy, also employed at
| IparoiDrto,,,S taettfia1 10 4bn nY,,n nn,o4
and was certain that Loves had not
been away from the works at noon on
| Wednesday.
L. Broomall Dyott testified that Loves
came to work at o'clock on the morn
ing of January 18th, and was not away
from the shop until o'clock in the
evening.
Thomas S. D. Hudson, who is en-
ployed as a foreman in the car shops of
the p, w. & B. Railroad Company, tes-
| titled that he has worked in the shops
for six years, and that no chairs are
| allowed in the shop. The windows are
never cleaned, and it would be impossi-
BILE for II person to see in from the out
side. During the time he has been in the
employ of the company he never knew
the windows to be cleaned.
James L. Engle, a foreman of the up
holstering department for the last three
| years, corroborated this testimony, and
was positive that no one could see in
| from the outside. The windows are
always covered with dust and dirt.
Charles Helmet took the stand to tes-
tify 10 the general good character of
| Spoerl, but as he admitted that he was
only slightly acquainted with him, the
court decided that his testimony could
not be admitted.
Mr. Carpenter seemed to think that
this testimony should be admitted, and
Notwithstanding the decision of the
chief justice and Judge Cullen continued
to urge the matter.
At last Chief Justice Comegys said,
| in manner that was not to be mis-
taken:
"Mr. Carpenter, you have gone very
far,sir; you had better sit down, / think"
The young attorney took his seat, but
rose in II few minutes to say that the
defense had no more witnesses.
The State then called Officers Her.
shock and Daniel Wilcox in rebuttal,
and closed with their testimony.
Nathaniel Davis, Esq, made the open
ing to the jury, and when he closed
court adjourned until 10 o'clock Wed
nesday morning.
When the court convened yesterday
Frank d. Carpenter, Esq, made the
opening argument to the jury for the
defence in the case of Harry Sporel.
He was followed by H. @. Turner, ESQ,
also for the defence, who urged the
jury to render u verdict of not guilty.
81 Isl. - ~.