Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-03-01
A BOGUS FIRE SALE CASE.

Through some misunderstanding be-
tween City Solicitor Elliott and the
Slate detectives one of the men charged
with violating the law by advertising a
bogus sale OF goods has been allowed to
escape and is now outside the jurisdic-
ton of the State. The fugitivei Is Lewis
Cohen, who, together with William
Luckyer, was arrested by State Detec-
tives Witsil and McVey, Friday even
ing, charged with violating chapter 66l,
Vol. XVIII, Laws of Delaware, by ad-
vertising bogus sale in the city of
Wilmington.
The men were arrested on complaint
lodged with the detectives by some Of
the leading merchants of this city, who
claim that they were deceiving the pub
lie by misrepresentation and at the same
time were acting in direct violation of
the law. They were given hearing in
municipal court Saturday morning.
Deputy Judge Emmons was on the
bench. During the preliminary hearing
friction occurred between the city solicit
tor and the detectives, during which the
latter declare that Mr.. Elliott told them
it was the work OF the police and not of
the detectives to make such arrests.
After several whispered conferences
with the prosecuting witnesses Mr..
Elliott informed Deputy Judge Emmons
that he would ask for continuance of
the case until Tuesday morning, as there
was insufficient evidence to warrant
him in going into trial at that time.
The detectives assert that the defend
ants were allowed to go on their own
recognizance, and as result of this
lack of precaution Cohen has taken
French leave and cannot now be found.
Lockyer was the only defendant on deck
when the case was called before Judge
Ball Tuesday morning. He had secured
counsel in William S. Hilles and was
ready to go to trial.
Evidence was produced to show that
Lockyer had posed as manager of the
| stores, Nos. 800 and 52l Market street,
and had made such admissions to the
detectives. The clothing placed on sale
in the above stores was advertised as
having been saved from recent fire in
the clothing establishment of Catz 81
Company, Baltimore.
William II. Rogers, salesman en-
ployed by j. T. Mullin & Son, testified
| budG lG liul sChlCnIu IuG lCSOluo VI lnC
fire department in Baltimore and he
could find no trace of any fire at Catz
| & Company's establishment as having
occurred within period of two years.
He also produced the city directory OF
Baltimore, which contained no such
firm as the%one mentioned, and refer
ence to Bradstreet's and Dun & Co.'s
commercial agencies showed no mention
of the supposed clothing firm.
Edgar l.. Haynes assistant business
manager of the Morning Nelos. and
James Greer, clerk in the office of thai
paper, testified to the fact that an ad
vertisement of the sale of clothing was
inserted and paid for by the London
and Liverpool Merchant Tailor Com
pany. Mr.. Greer testified that one oi
the advertisements was inserted by
Cohen.
Detective Witsil testified that Lockyei
admitted to him, Friday evening, thai
he was manager of tho stores for Mr.
Paris, who resides in Philadelphia, and
who virtually coInposes the London and
Liverpool Merchant Tailor Company
Detective Witsil also stated that Lockyei
had said that he stood responsible fol
the stores and that the clothing was
damaged in fire sale in Baltimore.
Martin Montgomery, the colored driver
for local express company, swore that
he had taken box of goods first to No
52l Market street, and had been referred
to Lockyer, who accepted and paid fol
it at the store No. 800 Market street and
gave him receipt. .....
In calling the names of the witnesses
Clerk Adams mentioned the name Of
Detective McVey The latter was about
to take the stand when Mr.. Elliott com.
manded the clerk to summon another
witness who was substituted for Mr.
| McVey. When the above evidence had
been submitted, Mr.. Elliott, addressing
Judge Ball said: "There is no other evi.
dence."
If Detective McVey had been per.
mitted to take the stand he would have
told how he went TO the store, No. 52l
Market street, osteusibly to purchase
some clothing and secured admissions
from the persons in charge that the
clothing had been damaged in Balti
more fire, and that William Lockyel
was the manager of the stores which
were disposing of the stock of clothing
under false colors. Detective McVey
would also have testified that Lockycl
admitted to him in the office of the CHIEF
of police that he was the manager of the
clothing stores.
The warrant was issued by George
Richards, clerk employed by the firm
of Justis & Davidson, the Market street
clothiers.
In opening for the defence Mr.. Hillei
asked the city solicitor whether or no
he proposed to ask that the case be hello
for the upper court The reply was il
the affirmative. Mr.. Hilles then read the
act under which the action has beer
brought, which is as follows:
1t shall not be lawful for any person en-
gagged in sale of any goods, wares or mer
chandise, within the corporate limits oi
the city of Wilmington to publicly anC
falsely, and with intent to deceive the gen
eral buying public advertise or otherwise
represent that such goods, wares or mer
chandise are or were either in whole or il
part the property of any insolvent ol
bankrupt, or the assignee of any insolven
or bankrupt, or that such goods, wares ol
merchandise were either in whole or in
part damaged by fire or accident. AM
person violating the provisions of said ac
shall be deemed guilty of Il misdemeanol
and upon conviction thereof, shall forfe
and pay fine of 500. Upon trial of any
person for violation of this section thu
intent to deceive the general public sha
be presumed where proof is made of {
public and false advertisement or repre-
sentation aforesaid.
Mr.. Hilles' contention was that this