Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-05-25


Guced in court by Sheriff Truitt OF
Sussex county. Wilson was brought to
this city last night and handed over to
the officers at police headquarters for
safe keeping until this morning.
Thomas Iiayard Hriscl appeared for
Wilson, who was released in the sum of
$4,000, the amount furnished by Stevens
surety.
Samuel Slesinger was the first witness
called in superior court Monday morn
ing, when the case Of SleSingar vs.. Top
kiss was resumed. Slcsinger, who was
ON the stand when court adjourned at
noon Saturday, was Iigidly cross exam
med by Mr. Bird.
Jacob II. Topkiss, the defendant in
the suit, was called by Mr.. Elliott. The
witness was sworn on the live books of
Moses, and testified that he now con.
duets store in New Castle for samuel
slGsinger, lie at one time carried on
business in this city. He had been buy
ing goods for five or six years, and lad
frequently borrowed money from Sizes
niger. He had borrowed as much as
$3.50 at time, He used the money in
paying other creditors The witness
was not aware Of the nature Of
Judgment, but stated that he
judgments, and after that the sheriff
came and closed his store. He owed at
that time bills amounting to about 50, 900.
lie considered that he was then worth
$4,000, which was the difference between
the sum which he paid for the goods
and the amount he expected to realize
on them. The shGriif's sale was we'll
attended, but the bidding was not
spirited and the goods sold for half their
value.
Mr.. Bird took Topkiss in hand and
demanded to know whether he did not
formerly carry on business on the
"cGast'' in this city. The witness pre-
tended not to know where the coast"
distrist was, whereupon Mr.. Bird said a
man who had lived on the ''coast" and
did not know where that thoroughiare
was, ought to be indicted.
Mr.. Bird then asked the witness who
conveyed the goods from his store after
the shGritf's sale, and Topkiss replied
that it was an eXpressman.
The witness said his heart was broken
when he saw what the goods brought
liph many liINSS NHo ~ SlShHi
into?" asked Mr.. Bird.
In reply 10 counsel's questions witncs:
said he carried stock Of goods worth
$4,000 and never kept book III his life
Mr. Bird then asked Topkiss whether
he had not told man named Friedman
that he owed him (Fricdman) more
money than lie owed any one else il
| the world. The witness replied in til,
negative. lie entered the same dcnia
when asked if he had made the sam,
! statements to Mr.. katz and Mr.. kraus
| Mi. Bird then commanded Mr. Frcid
man to stand up. adding as he did so:
~ want to see, your honors, whelhe
all these men are liars, and the witnes
is telling the truth.
The witness denied that he had mad
| such statement to Friedman, but eX
planned what he did say to him.
Nathan Lieberman was called an
said he saw the stock of goods Toplis
had On hand and that they were prot
ably worth $4,000.
EX-ShesitL Simmons testified to max
ing the levy on Topkiss' goods and t
the closing Of the store.
David Abramson testified that Tor
kiss at one time bought goods from hin
and at times contracted bills to tn
amount of $1,000, for which he gave
preferred Judgment to Abramson at til
time OF the failure.
Mr. Conrad produced a book in whic
Topklss' Indebtedness to Abramson We
chronicled. The plaintiff objected I
the book going in evidence on I'll
ground that it was not book Of orig
nal entries regularly kept. The cuu
sustained the objection.
The witness said that he had sol
Topkiss, altogether, goods amountir
to S2,5U0, and fopEiss had paid hi
from 800 to $1,000. This left a balant
Of about 81 800.
The examination of the witness ";
underway when court took a rece
until $50 o'clock p. in.
Testimony in the suit of Samuel Sles
} ger VS.. Jacob H. Topkss, came to an eI
III the superior court Monday afternoo
Alexander y. Cooper then opened for Il
i plaintiff and began arguing at son
, length to the court. He stated that Il
case was in almost every respect similar
the suit of llelmrath vs.. the Charl
Mullin Company. He claimed that 4
judgments given by Topkiss to Abramsc
and SleSnger were preferred through fra
9 and that there was no money owing
: Abramson and Slesinger at the time /
judgments were preferred.
: MIR. Cooper cited q long list of autho
= ties in support of his argument. He 50
? the evidence that ropkiss was insolve
4 al the time was an indication of fraud. /
! contended that inasmuch as there W
Il fraudulent action it effected all the lut
ments preferred by Topkiss. He furtl
4 Cuntendcd that the usual waiver OF 30 da
was denied the Philadelphia creditors W
i, were left out in the cold and there "
y fraud On the face of the transaction.
HenryG Conrad then began his arr
Z, ment for the defence and was followed
e MIR. Elliott, who asked the court to Ghal
l. the Jury on the following points:
4 First. That the confession OF a judGmt
i toa creditor for bona tide debt for t
r pnrpose of securing the same and there
= avoiding suit il procured by the diliger
i Of the creditor, and the preference is alb
g lutte ami unconditional, and without a
Il design TO secure to the debtor any person
benefit as against his non preferred ere
| tors, docs not conflict with the laws
this State, and does not constitute
Illegal preference.
e Second That if the Jury believe that
II judgments obtained by Slesinger and Da
Abramson were obtained by their diligel
ID and pressure then their verdict should
10 mo- to the first and second issues.
i Third That if the jury believe that
~ Judgments SO obtained from jacob
y Fropkiss we're for bona tide debts, ii
"a their verdict should be mo- to the til
d Issue.
G, MIR. Birds argument concluded the CT
The following cases were reported
@. tied: William K, Quillan VS.. Diamt
70 State Iron Company, Margaret Gruml
- Us. p, w. & Il. railroad Minnie 4. II;
~ ilton VS.. Jordan A. Wilson. Samuel
10 Forbes VS.. Guardian Loan Associate
ID Virginia 5. Mitchell VS.. Booths execute
&C The case of John Brown vs.. the r.,
lie & b. railroad was announced i'll course
IA settlement,