The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1893-05-20
FIFTH EDITION,



When court conventd at 10 o'clock
thls morning John Big gs renewed hIg
application In the cate OF Solomon
Stevens, who Is now in Georgetown
jail charged with arson, b It he be adj.
mltted to ball. The motion was OBJ.
jeeted to by Deputy Attorney General
Giles, but after hearing the argument
the Court decided that as there was
considerable doubt about Stevens
guilt he could be released on ball. and
the amount was fixed at 81, 600.
When this business was disposed OF
the case OF SlesInger, VS.. Topkis was
again taken up and the examination
OF witnesses for the creditors resumed.
william =. Schuster testified that he
sold Topkis bill OF goods. amount
ing to el8i.21, In the fall OF 1891. Hc
was afterwards told by friend who
was acquainted with Topkls, that he
was very much surprised at him for
allowing Topkis to contract bill, as
he was insolyent.
Ex.SherlT Simmons was recalled,
but as objection was made to hie testl.
mony he was allowed TO leave the
stand.
MIR. Elliott then opened for the de-
Tense, and after outlining his case TO
the Jury commenced the examination
OF Witnesses.
Samuel Slesslnger was called. but
objected to being sworn, and said
that while he had conscientious soru.
pies against taking an oath at all, he
did not believe In the five books of
Moses. Mr.. Bird insisted that he
| should be sworn, and authorities were
produced to show that 1t was In the
power OF the Court TO oblige him to
swear. The witness WIS finally al
lowed TO alfirm, and proceed with his
testimony.
He testified that he is engaged in tho
clothing, dry goods and furniture
business, at 7O6 French street, He
has been acquainted with Toplls for
several years, and has transacted
business with him. He sold him goods
and lent him money In sums varying
from S!5 to cas- at u time during the
past five years. In the fall of 1881 he
owed tile witness $3.50, about one.
third of which was for goods he had
sold Hun. and tho remainder for money
loaned.
An account book was produced.
which the witness claimed was his
book OF original entry. but which tho
original entry, but merely O memo
randum. and after argument It was
decided to admit 1t as evidence. The
| witness then went over the book-an
quoted number Of items. showing
that up to May, 1891, he had sold Top.
kls goods and loaned him money
amounting in the aggregate to $1,000.
FOR which lie had given a note at six
months.
From May until the fall Of 1891 he
had increased this amount by pur.
chasing goods and money borrowed
to 81, $50, which lie promised to pay In
| two weeks He failed to nav MT fhe
time promised, when the witness
again went to him and told him that
he must either pay the money or give
him a barkable note. AS he could not
do other, the witness determined to
sue him, but upon Topkis Offering to
give him Judgment note. he con-
cluded to accept, and Immediately had
1t entered at the Court House. The
witness was present at the sale, and
for his own protection bought 81 ,C7O
worth OF the goods, at what he con-
sidered about one third of their usual
selling price. He left tho goods In tho
store and engaged Topkis to conduct
the place at $40 week salary, and
per cent. commission on all sales.
The witness also leased the store
for him at SIS q month rent. He had
a sign over four feet long painted,
with the words, Samuel Slessinger's
Branch Store on It and 1t was put up
at the door. Topkls has made weekly
returns and the witness has paid his
salary and commission ever 81 nee.
When Topkis gave him the judg ment
note the witness did not know any
thing about the Philadelphia credi-
tors.
The case was still on trial when
court adjourned.