Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-06-23
THE LICENSE APPLICATIONS.
Result of the Courts Action at the
Present Term.

1
Wilmington House Among the Latter.
As as court convened yesterday after
noon week the hearing of license applica-
| tons was resumed The first case taken
up was that of Rose Murphy at No. 1913
Taylor street. Mr.. Prickett opposed the
application on the ground that it was a
new place and owing to the fact that there
were already too many saloons in the
neighborhood. Ex-Attorney-gene Biggs
represented the applicant and called a
| number of witnesses who testified in the
applicants behalf. John McMame,
Joseph S. Hill and Joseph G. Harrington
testified that they thought the place
necessity.
Alexander X. Gillespie made application
to keep saloon at Taylor and Church
streets. The applicant was represented by
Walter H. Hayes. Mr.. Pickett COM
planned that there were too many saloons
IN the vicinity already. Mr.. Hayes said as
there were no special charges against Mr..
Gillespie the license should be granted. He
said that his client had not violated the
law in any way and was justly entitled to
a renewal of his license.
John j. Hanley made application for a
license at No. 10l Monroe street. Peter l..
Cooper appeared for the applicant. Mr..
Prckett called the Rev. Alexis |. du Pont
Coleman, Oscar Appleby and w. S. Bull
lock. who testified that the place was a
detriment to the neighborhood.
Mr.. Cooper called State Senator Dona-
hoe Charles Grant, Elmer c. Sharpley and
Richard Ward, who testified that Hanley
was proper man to keep a saloon and
that the place was u necessity.
The next case was that of Thomas
Lally, who keeps a saloon at the north
east corner of Fifth and Spruce streets.
The applicant was represented by William
Il. Smalley, Jr.
There was no specific objection to the
| Urn nf ha No ttftft tfaro
called.
The application of John Tully, whose
place is at No. East Front street, was
called up. Mr.. Prickett stated that the
specific charge against FULLY was that of
obstructing the view of the interior of his
saloon by closing up the window, and that
for some reason the charge had not been
drawn in the remonstrance. The applicant
was represented by Henry G. Turner and
Walter IL. Hayes. No witnesses were
called in the case.
Court adjourned at o'clock until 1C
o'clock Thursday morning.
When court convened Thursday morn
ing George IL. Bates, counsel for Otto
Ii. Ilg, asked for rule TO show cause
why the sheriff should not be held re-
sponsible for failure to execute writ
/ placed in his hands before the defend
ant escaped theSjurisdiction of the State.
The defendant was the Elmer Il. Vance
Company playing at the Opera House
during the past season. Mr.. Bates
claims that if the writ of foreign
attachment had been served at the
| proper time by the sheriff, the goods
would have been detained and held
until the judgment on the part of the
/ plaintiff had been obtained. The claim
, amounted to about $500. The plaintiff
| oil nj lat oil ua6
the manager of the Elmer E. Vance
Company to go to the prothonotary's
office and enter special bail without ap.
, proval Of the court on consent of the
plaintiff Benjamin Nields appeared fol
5 the sheriff. The case was held up and
! that Of William Helmrath VS.. The
= Charles Mullin Company started upon
, A jury was called to decide the issue
-. in the case. Lewis C. Vandegriit and
+, Benjamin Nields appeared for Helm
G rath and Willard Salisbury, Jr., for the
: Charles Mullin Company. The judg
y ment of William Helmrath amounts tc
!, $17,11750. Besides this judgment there
u are 10 other smaller judgments entered
against the Charles Mullin Company
Counsel for Helmrath claim the fund
of the insolvent company on the grounc
o of prior judgment. Mr.. Vandegrif
also entered the claim of White
s Thompson, amounting to $3,S98.51.
3 The following are the other judg
:, d ments: Sarah L. Mullin, $3.50; Nicho
e las Weber, $3.50; Leander McManus
il $327.61; Otto Ham and William Ham
i trading as Otto Haun & Bro, 1924. %
4 Samuel g. Lambert, Edward C
e Stoughten and Francis l.. Cooper, trad
= ing as Lambert " Cooper, 1910; tn,
!. Star Publishing Co., $3.50; Willard
salisbury, Jr., $4,000; Ellwood Sharl
and James Otley Evans, trading a
Sharp Il Evans, $3.50; Alphanus lily
: sore, trading as Hysore & Son, 81 1887
J. George W. Baker & Co., $S00.Ss
v Michael Kelly, $20l25; Maurice Brown
Z ing and George Browning, trading a
v Browning & Bro, $442.42; Valentin
1 Liebig, $l62.S0; Richard Hart, $279 &c
l. Emory Byron, trading as the Byroi
g Malt Vinegar Co., $4l5.31; Atlantic Re
h filming Co., 5000; Anthony McNelly
j, $3.50; Capelle Hardware Co., $57.13.
v Mr.. Vandegrift here addressed tn
+. jury and stated that they had been elm
!. panelled to decide three questions in thi
"a case, namely: First-Did the Charlie
t Mullin Company contemplate insol
vency at the time it voluntarily con
fessed the judgments by amicable agree
,e ment?
u Second-If the company, by volun
y tarily confessing insolvency, eontem
y plated to prefer the creditors to whor
- said judgments were confessed, did tn
,. company attempt to secure and pay
:. greater amount than it could pay i.
= creditorsy
- Third-Did the company confess sal
:. judgments to defraud their creditors?
. Mr.. Vandegrift then called Frank {
~ Carpenter, paying teller and notar
- public of the Union National Bank, a
the first witness. The object in calm
the witness was to prove that notes {
> the defendant company were protestc
!, prior to the time judgments wer
= entered against the Charles Null
" Company, tending to show that the
=, - contemplated insolvency at the time til
=, notes were made.
,e Edmund II. White of White
.s Thompson, goat skin brokers of Phili
:, =. delphia, was the next witness. The wi
~ had had with Mr.. salisbury an
y Charles Mullin after the failure of III
Charles Mullin Company.
During the morning jury of inquis
ton was empaneled in the law librar
n n, upon the case Of James V. Carlisle
ii 90. VS.. James Il. Newman, action on
es promissory note drawn by Joseph !
r. Newman and endorsed by Samuel
be Newlln. The claim amounted
be $52S.74. The jury found for James Y
y, Carlisle g. Co. in full, with intcres
30 amounting in all to S62S, IA.