Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-06-21
IUNE rERM q. a. cnnRr
The Cnse Of DE Con iirOs. of Philadelphia
vs.. Willard I. pnnlc.

u. Y, Ilardesty was present 10 take
verbatim testimony, as was also Stenog.
rapher Arthur w. Swarts.
The list Of causes was then gone over
with the following result:
MoMacken VS.. Is. & =. K. Il. was
passed.; Mary A. Miller, cxecutrix VS.,
Pusey Il Jones Co., passed; Shaw vs..
Blunenthal, continued 10 October term;
Il. b. Sellers vs.. PGrvls s. Williams Co.,
continued; also the following continued.
h. r. Martin vs. L. l.. Martin; Kartavert
Manufacturing Co.. vs.. Vulcanized
Fibre Co; Delaware Hard Fibre Co. vs..
karLavert Manufacturing Co.; same VS..
Nulcanized Fibre Co.; 5, l.. Vert VS..
Wilmington Oil and Leather Co.;
Robert ID. Maxwell VS.. Wilmington
Dental Manufacturing Co.; Il. II. Nc.
Council VS.. j. II. Douglass; NJ. j. Stroud
VS.. W. Il. Cunningham; w. Goldie
ct al. VS.. Diamond State Iron Co.; York
Manufacturing Co. VS.. g. II. Eccles;
Arthur X. Leete VS.. Nonesuch Fibre
Co; United States VS., Luce Brothers;
same VS.. S. S. Brown g. CO.; National
Dredging 20. VS.. tug Argus, dismissed;
John ). Rowland vs., British steamship
South Cambria, dismissed.
The following jury was empaneled TO
try the case of DE Cou Bros. of Phila-
delphia, VS.. Willard r. Poole. Lambert
V. Nicholson, Harry Miller, Joseph L.
Truxton, Charles II. Maull, Virden W.
Truitt, John o. Truitt, Frank Downes,
Robert @. Justis, Amos Cole, Henry IL.
McMullen, Gardner W. Joseph, William
II. Jones.
There was few minutes delay wait
ing for witnesses.
In the case Of tho York Manufactur.
ing Co., of Pennsylvania, w. 5. Hilles
made motion to quash the marshaps
return of writ in the matter. 1t seems
the return shows service Of writ rem
dered Caroline II. Ecclcs, as general
manager, at Dover But the document
| shows no definite statement that service
had eecn rendered to the presiding Off.
Ger Of the firm, or that that official was
in the State at the time. Argument on
the motion was continued.
In the motion for the continuance of
the case of Shaw VS.. Blumenthal IL Co.,
Mr.. salisbury called Julian g. Ullman
OF the defendant firm to the stand. The
witness testified that several of the ma
terial witnesses for his case cannot get
here for the present term, and that il
the case goes to trial without the absent
witnesses there would be little likeli.
hood of success. Among the absentees
arc George A. Maxwell, who is in
Florida; McDermott " Howe, In New
York and Brooklyn, and a Mr.. Adams.
In reply to Mr.. Ward the witness said he
has had correspondence with these parties
and they have promised to be here in
October. Ii Maxwell cannot get here o
commission to take testimony will be
asked for. Mr.. Salisbury said that prob.
ably deposition will be taken in Brook,
Ign,
Mr.. Ward asked for peremptory trial
next October.
The court assured counsel that the
case will probably be heard.
Mr.. Hoifeckcr then addressed the jury
in the De Cou VS.. Poole case. He sait
that the present action is to recover the
sum of $4,000 on promissory note dut
phia by Willard I. Poole Of this city.
The De Cou Brothers of Philadelphia
are wholesale shoe dealers. Mr.. Poole
purchased the shoe store of certain
Jennie Kline, to whom Poole gave the
$4,000 note as part payment. The not'
subsequently came into the hands 81
De Cou Brothers through Indebtedness
of jeanne Kline, u retail shoe dealer
who owed certain sums TO the De Cot
Brothers as the result of shoe trans
actions.
Colonel Nields for his client, Millar(
T. Poole, said that the purchase o
goods from Kline was done in the usua
way, which is by sample. Some 300
boxes were sold in the transfer OF thu
, property from Kline to Poole. All tn
contents of the store were sold TO
$1,000. The note in question was il
, part payment.
Mr.. Poole subsequently found that h
: had been badly cheated in the propert.
transfer The samples were fairl,
| good. But the stock when examine,
was thoroughly bad. Childrens' shoe
had been substituted at the bottom o
? cases supposed to contain misses shoes
and much of the goods was rotten an
quite unstable.
DE Cou, TO whom Kline, as stated
was indebted, one evening came to tn
: store, when Poole was asked whethe
4 the So 500 note was his.
nlls OOlt ~ was hAs AOA
S and warned De Cou not to buy the not
Y as he poole proposed contesting til
:, payment, as the goods for which it wa
i given were rotten and altogether dill
IS ferent from what Kline had elaine
y them to be. When De Cou attempte
e to collect the amount, as it came du,
u Mr.. Poole told him that he knew this
II the $4,000 note was fraudulent and thu
G the note would be contested if i
bought 1t.
Willard T. Poole was the first witne
i called. He detailed the story OF h
transactions with Kline and his @,
10 perience with De Cou.
- Willard Il. Poole was still on the wi
N ness stand undergoing cross.examin
~ ton at 1.30 p. M, the time OF adjourn
70 ment of court.
20 Testimony in the case of De &c
Brothers VS.. Willard Il. Poole was col
=. tinued Tuesday afternoon. Miss BY
Poole, daughter of the defendant, test
fled she was bookkeeper for Mr.. Pool
She gave evidence that DE Cou on oil
ID occasion offered to accept $500 less fro
~ MI. Poole than the face of the note.
ID Several witnesses testified in regal
$ to the fact of the generalization OF q
IN goods and that the stock developed
to be very inferior and in some instanc
te quite worthless.
ne One or two sharp passages occurrl
ty in the cross.examnation OF Mr.. Pool
between that witness and counsel +
the plaintiff.
Court was delayed yesterday mornil
as through the absence OF Jurymen Am
BY Cole and Frank Downes, both of Ke
IS county.
IN The absent jurymcn arrived 25 mi