The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1893-05-19
FIFTH EDITION..



This mornings session OF the Gu.
perlor Court convened at 10 O'clock.
with all tho judges on the bench. A
jury was drawn and tho case OF Sam
uel Slessinger vs.. Jacob III. ToDkia
was taken up for trial with A. d.
Cooper for the plaintiff, and George II.
Elliott for the defense.
This Is a case In which there are q
number OF creditors. and 1t is claimed
that Topkis made an assignment for
tho purpose OF defrauding them. He
had kept store on Market street this
city, but afterwards removed TO New
Castle and opened out large place.
He then bought goods to large
amount In Philadelphia, and had them
placed 10 his store.
! One OF his creditors in Philadelphia
learned something concerning Top.
kis. which caused him to visit New
Castle. Upon calling on ropls no was
informed that tbat he was perfectly
safe. financially, was doing o good
business, and did not owe any one but
him. With this assurance the repre-
sentative of the Philadelphia firm re.
lin the the next two weeks to learn
that Topkis had confessed Judgment
on two notes, one being In favor of
Slessinger for $3.50. ami the other In
flavor OF man named Abrams for
$500, with stay OF execution for one
day.
The levy was made and the sale took
place December 81. 1891. being nine
teen days afterwards. At tho sale
nearly all the goods were bought In
,I6y Topkis' son. In slessinger's name.
81, 1896 of which, after paying tho
costs, 81 1850 was paid into the court.
',By order OF the court $50 OF this
amount was paid for rent, leaving
q, 209 so.
The amount of TopkIs' debts at the
time Of the failure, exclusive OF the
two judgments given, was $500. Mr..
Cooper said that he would prove that
the goods were purchased for the pur-
pose OF fraud. and the judgments
,lgiven with the same intent. He said
THAT he would show that at the time
,lthe judgment Was given Slessinger
tho latter was bankrupt, and that
-ITophls could not have owed him any
thing. He then commenced the ex-
ANIMATION Of witnesses.
j Edward Ridgely testified that he is
salesman in a large wholesale house
lin Philadelphia and knows Topkis, as
he had been selling him goods for
three years. On October 10. 1891.
Topkis and his wife came to their
store and bought over S400 worth OF
goods, He acted in such q nervous.
timid manner that he excited the sus-
/ picion OF the witness. Previous to
i this. he had never bought more than
! 500 worth at time. His purchases on
n this occasion were very indi5creet,
!, and lie seemed anxious to buy almost
everything offered him, and get out
: OF the store as soon as possible. The
firm afterwards became suspicious.
7 and held the goods Tor three days boz
. fore shipping.
Herman Kraus was the next wit.
ness and testified that he is engaged
iin business at No. 62l South street,
Philadelphia. He had sold sold goods
8 in small amounts to Topkis for mum.
, Ter Of years. On October II. 1891, Mr..
land Mrs. Tapkis came Ia his store and
bought goods to the amount Of e441..
Q 90. much larger bill T. han he had ever
/. bought before. On November go. 1891,
eithe witness received an unsigned tele.
gram saying:
Come Immediately to Topkis. and
collect BILL" He went to Now Castle
lat once and upon showing TopEis tue
despatch. he denied all knowledge OF
=. 1t, and said it must be dream.
1 He also assured tho witness that he
owed him much more thnn he owed
, all his other creditors put together,
, and said that he Intended to pay him
and cheat the others. The witness
e afterwards learned that the telegram
was sent BY Mrs. Roth. The witness
was present at the sale and noticed
; that most OF the bidding was done by
i one OF Topkis'sons for Slessinger, WHO
. was standing close to him. Mrs.
0 lTopkis afterwards came to him and
: said she would pay him in full and
give him IL 900 II he would 60 to the
other creditors and get them to settle
: for 30 or rs per cent, but this the Wit
mess refused TO dc.
At this point Levi c. Bird, who
with IIofrecker 4 Hoffecker was also
associated with Mr.. Cooper for the
credltors, offered 10 show that Topeka
wife noted as nm agent for him, and
was a party to the fraud. A long ar,
lgument ensued, that WIS participated
I'm by Messrs. Bird, Cooper and Elliott,
The Court finally decided that this
was admissible and in answer to Mr..
S Cooper's question the witness said
g that rs q general rule Mrs. Topkis
. transacted the greater part OF the
It business In selecting and buying
goods.
The case was still on trial and the
Il same witness on tho stand. whom the