Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-09-21
certain testimony upon which he proposed

Pryor stated that Fortner had on one
occasion said: ut is of no use your COM
ing up 10 the court. There will be nothing
of it If he would go home" Fortner did
not promise him his expenses to attend
court in, Wilmington.
Ex-Revenue Collector Daniel Burton
testified that FORMER had not paid for
license. Two years ago Mr.. Burton called
OH Fortner, when the latter stated he was
not selling liquors. Last fall the defend
ant made a similar statement.
Mr.. Sanborn asked the court to instruct
the Jury to dismiss the charge as the in
dictment claims the sale to have been OF
malt liquor not particle of testimony to
that effect having been adduced.
Mr.. Watson reminded the jury that Mr.
Burton testified Fortner had told him he
had purchased pear cider, alleged lager,
from Fortner last winter.
Fortner, the defendant, was then placed
on the stand. He positively stated hc
never did sell lager beer or malt liquor of
any kind. Ee bought pear cider from a
wagon seller named Whitelock.
The case was then submitted to the jury.
The Hanrahan case was postponed to
the October term.
The trial OF Isaac w. Nailor, charged
with sending obscene matter through
the mail, ganMonday. District-attorney
Watson conducted the prosecution and
Levi q. Bird and John Biggs defended
the prisoner.
The defence challenged Joseph j.
Handy and George b. Money and the
prosecution challenged Henry M. Tun-
nell and William Baxter. The follow
ing jury was selected; William G. Wier,
foreman; N. j. Pierson, William Green,
Robert S. Downes, William Wingate,
Charles M. Carey, Henry II. McMullin,
Charles IL. Maull, William Lawton,
Samuel J. Mccall, Allen Speakman and
Thomas S. Robinson. The other petit
jurors were discharged from further
attendance at this term.
Addressing the jury the district attor-
ney read the section under which the
indictment was drawn and also read the
alleged obscene letter. The communica-
tion, he stated, was anonymous and di-
rected to Mrs. Sarah j. Creamer. The
accused was indicted on four counts.
Mrs. Sarah j. Creamer was the first
witness. She testified that she is resid-
| ing in this city at present, but resided in
| Milton last April. She had lived there
about five years. She is the widow Of
the Rev. L. II. Creamer, who was min
lister Of Wilmington M. Il. Conference.
| She has eight children, among whom is
a daughter called Maud, to whom
reference is made in the letter IN
question. Maud is Is years old.
The letter was shown to the. witness
and she said she had seen it and the
envelope before. They had come to her,
as far as she knew, through the United
States mail and from the postoffice at
/ MiltAn Sha A t,rtl
last. The envelope had a one-cent stamp
on it and was addressed 'Mrs. Creamer
Milton, Sussex county, Del"
Other testimony concerning the hand
writing was heard.
The district attorney was granted per
mission to enter a nolle prosequi in the
cases against Angelic Ciccatillo and
John Ii. FORMER, charged with selling
liquor without a license.
On motion of Willard Salisbury
James w. Ponder was admitted tl
practice at the bar Of the Unites States
court.
Soon after 1 o'clock the court took O
recess until 2o'clock.
The Nailor case was resumed in the
afternoon. Jas. III. Warrington, ex-Gov
Ponder, DR.. Hopkins, Frank Wagner
and Detective McVey were called by the
prosecution in an attempt to prove thai
Nailor wrote the letter. They identified
several receipts and contract which
were written by him and said they
thought the writing in the letter re
sembled the writing in the papers which
they identified. The documents which
they identified were put in evidence.
Here the prosecution rested and JohT
Biggs addressed the jury. He was will
ing to rest the case but would produces
witnesses to prove the unquestionet
good reputation of the defendant and \,
show that the case was one of unjus
persecution.
The accused was called to the stanC
and denied that he wrote the letter ant
declared he did not know who wrote o
mailed it. He stated that he had ha(
Mrs. Creamer's son and some other boy
arrested for breaking into his place o
business. AT the magistrates office Mrs
Creamer had said she would have he
day yet.
Peter Virden, Isaac w. Adkins, Johl
B. Dorman, w. B. Tomlinson, ex-Post
master Manship and w. 4. Collins o
Milton testified that they had know
the defendant for many years as a busi
ness man of unauestioned reputation
They were familiar with his hand
writing, but could not say the letter wa
written by him.
John G. Wiltbank testified that he hat
heard Mrs. Creamer say at the magis
trate's office "This is Mr.. Majors day
mine will come in the future"
The defence rested and District AT
torney Watson wanted to call witnesse
in reply but was not permitted to do sc
The case was then given to the jur
at 2.30 p. m.
When the jury retired to their cham
ber in the afternoon to consider tn
Nailor case the court read to counse
engaged in the argument number 0
authorities supporting the courts opin
ion in reference to standards of writing
District Attorney Watson noted a
exception. Judge Wales declined t
entertain the public prosecutors motor
laconically replying that if the defend
ant be acquitted the case is ended; if h
be convicted there is no use for an eS
! ception; and if the jury disagree th
case can be tried over again. AT
: o'clock the jury returned 20 court wit
, verdict of not guilty. This closed tn
| Snrfnnnhar tarp, ,,f rOnrt