Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-12-14
SUPERIOR COURT.
Cases Considered by the County
Tribunal.

Mitchell Gets a Verdict Against the
City-considerable argument and Testi-
mony.
When superior court opened, Thurs
day, William Michael Byrne, coun-
sci for defendant in the case of Thomas
j. Wallace VS.. Hugh Hession, consented
to judgment In favor Of the plaintiff,
the amount to be ascertained by the
prothonotary, with q stay Of execution
for six months.
William s. Prickett asked for attach
ments for the garnishees in the suit of
J. Hood Wright VS.. II, G. Robinson.
The attachments were issued and made
returnable forthwith. This action was
simply taken to induce the garnishees
to come up and answer.
In the divorce suit of David J. Murphy
VS.. Mary Murphy, William Q. Spruance,
on behalf of the respondent, made appli-
cation for alimony and counsel fees,
Mr.. Prickett, for the petitioner, informed
the court that he would confer with
MI. Spruance in regard to the amount
to be determined upon.
The case of Freeman & Wise VS..
Jacob II. Topkiss and ex-sheriff William
simmons, was then taken up. Levi @.
Bird and Andrew H. Sanborn appeared
for the plaintiff, and William T. Lyman
for the defendants. There arc number
Of other suits pending against Topkiss,
those of Thomas @. Else & Co., Deacon
Brothers, Liyeright, Greenwood d Co.,
keim, Pretzel IL Co., and Emanuel KALI
u Son. The suits are replevin cases.
fopkiss became financially embarrassed
and was sold out by the sheriff. Hence
the suit by the above creditors of Top
kiss To recover an equal share of the
money realized by the sale.
Jacob Fl. Topl1iss has figured in the
| superior court before. He conducted
small store in New Castle and bought
goods from freeman & Wise, Phila.
delphia firm. Shortly after he obtained
the goods Topkiss voluntarily confessed
| Judgment In favor of David Abramson
and agreed to pay his creditors so cents
on the dollar.
Moses Wise and Victor Freeman
testified that Topkiss purchased $240
worth OF goods from the firm and they
replevined goods to the value of S165.45,
Topkiss assured the firm he was per-
fectly solvent and said that the sum of
$1,000 was due him from responsible
creditors.
Court took recess until $50 p. IN.
The replevin case of Freeman Il Wise
OF Philadelphia VS.. Jacob II. Topkiss
| occupied the attention Of the superior
court Thursday afternoon. Victor Froe-
man and Herman Krouse went upon
the stand and testified that Topkiss had
represented to them that he was per-
fectly solvent at the time he made large
purchases OF goods, yet Notwithstanding
this fact he failed inside of few days
and confessed judgment in favor of
David Abramson.
Krouse averred that Topkiss assured
him that If the witness would make
settlement with the other creditors on
basis OF 30 per cent he would pay Krouse
the full amount of his claim.
In the superior court Friday morning
William ). Hilles. representing the plain
tin in the suit of Frank A. Mitchell VS..
the Mayor and Council of Wilmington,
applied for an order compelling the de.
PENDANTS to produce certain papers in court
In order that the plaintiff may have access
TO the documents during the trial. The
papers include certain letters written to
the Board OF Street and Sewer Directors by
Mr.. Mitchell in regard to tho payment Of
his claim against the city, together with a
resolution passed by the board and the
measurements of a certain piece of ground
of material Importance in trying the case.
Lewis z. Vandegrift, for the defence, in
formed the court that he would produce
the papers at the proper time, and if the
court then commanded him to allow the
plaintiff to examine them, he would do so.
The court informed Mr.. Hilles that no
order would be made at this time, but in
view OF the fact that he had made applica-
ton for the production OF the papers the
court would give the matter due considera-
ton when the case came up. The case has
been set for trial Monday next.
The plaintiff brings suit to recover about
sou, the amount of bill alleged to be
due Mr.. Mitchell for putting tar on a
pavement along Adams street. The city
claims that the work was not according 10
the agreement, hence the suit.
The suit Of Freemen d Wise VS.. Jacob
II. Topkiss was then resumed. BENJAMIN
smith and John n. Hanson of New
Castle were called to prove that Topkiss
conducted small store in the Delaware
House at New lastle, and that his stock of
clothing represented only about $1,000,
while Topkiss told the plaintiffs that he
carried large stock of goods and owed
but few hundred dollars actual indebted
ness.
Harry L. Moody, resident of Philadel-
phia, testified that Topkiss purchased
goods from the firm of which he was the
confidential book-keeper. The amount of
the bill was Sl17.
Ex-Sheriff William Simmons, one of the
defendants TO the replevin suit, was present
when freeman d Wise replevined
quantity of goods. He testified that the
firm received no goods that were not mem
TONED in the writ of replevin.
The plaintiff rested after calling samuel
Slesinger and David Abramson.
Court took recess until $50 o'clock.
The superior court and jury of IL men,
together with a quartet of attorneys,
struggled with the case Of Freeman &
Wise VS.. Topkss, all the afternoon
and despite their efforts. failed to dispose
OF the now celebrated Topkiss case which,
although OF a different character has be-
come almost as famous as the suit of Bar
dell VS.. Pickwick. Topkiss was in the
court room as usual and watched the pro-
ceedings with undated interest.
William Topkiss, aged 16 years, son OF
the immortal Topkiss was first called by
the defence and his testimony was detailed
from the stand in manner that reflected
great credit on the Topkiss family. Top
kiss, tile younger, is q bright boy, and
made up for the deficiency in the knowl-
edge of his ancestor, who was unable to
read or write. The witness was handed
number of checks by MIR. Davis for the de-
fence and the former identified them as
the checks of the elder Topkiss, having
been filled in by the son.
The checks were offered in evidence by
MIR. Davis, as going TO prove that Topkiss
paid out large sums of money after he
purchased the bill of goods from Freeman
Wise, the plaintiffs in this suit. This |
evidence also contraverted the assertion |
made by the plaintiff as pointing to the |
insolvency of Topkiss at the time the bill |
of goods was purchased.
~ Topkiss the younger, then gave way to
Topkiss the elder, who took the stand and |