Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-06-28

lie bookkeeper Of De Cou Bros, WAS
kain on the stand. In answer to Mr..
pfYecker's questions the witness an.
ered point blank, denying completely
bat Poole had made any statement to
|m in regard to iniirmity of the note.
fact Poole remarked he wanted the
tie to go to protest in order that he
ight be in better position to attack
line. Poole made clear offer Of
900 to settle the note.
The witness closed his testimony for
Cou Bros. in stating that Goldstein,
bole's clerk, brought to the DE Cou
siness place sample SHOE from
bole's store asking for line of
ticles similar to it, The order was
clined for some business reason or
her.
In answer to Mr.. Nields the witness
asserted positively that Poole made
statement in regard to fraud in con-
ction with the note or that he would
ntest its payment. The witness was
stive that Mr.. and Miss Poole are
staken in their statements about Mr..
pole informing him in regard to any
CORRECTNESS in the note for $1,000 or
Poole's saying be would contest it on
|count OF fraud.
Conrad f. Clothier, TIC Market street,
holesale boot and shoe dealer testified
having had frequent dealings with
r Poole.
III. .. Atkinson, treasurer of the
hicks County Trust Co. of Dovlestown,
l., testified that he held mortgage on
c Roche-Poole farm, already referred
in evidence. Poole paid the half
arly interest of $66 on the mortgage
September, 1899. The mortgage was
r $4,000, and the witness paid : 800
r it. He did not remember demand
Ig 81, 400 for 1t and that if not paid he
ould foreclose by the sheriff. The
ortgage at present is not foreclosed.
David Kline was the next witness.
e testified having sold over 5000 pairs
shoes to Mr.. Poole. The latter and
IS son examined the stock from the
ternoon to 2 o'clock the next morning.
The witness and Mr.. Poole's son kept
count of everything as the inventory
as taken. He told Mr.. Poole he was
bling to sell the notes. They were sold
Mr.. De Cou. He got $4,000 worth
goods for the note. The note was
landed to DE Cou in August.
Kline testified that Poole never saw
m put the note in the safe. He told
oole he had sold the note to De Cou.
DOLE replied remarking that he might
ave made a better bargain down east
discounting his note there and get
Ing the same goods for 70 cents instead
81.
lie never advised Poole's Hebrew
lstomers not TO buy there and that his
ock was no good. Poole and he were
pod friends. He often sent 10 him for
ticles he was short Of
In answer TO Colonel Nields the wit
PISS claimed the shoes he sold to Poole
ere all good and a tirst-class article.
Everything was mated. 1t was good
ock right through.
Samuel Fl. Baynard was placed on
be stand in order to testify in regard TO
britain statements at the former trial OF
pc present suit, on which occasion he
las member of the jury that tried the
lse. To the best Of his recollection
oole testified that the Bucks county
hrm had been sold by the sheriff.
Court adjourned at B p. IN.
When court was resumed Thursday
orning Mr. Hoffecker arose and stated
is willingness to submit the case TO the
flry without argument.
The Court ION the law?"
Mr.. Whatever charge
*our honor may think fl to give"
Colonel Nields appeared to be of the
hme frame 0f mind.
The Court to Mr.. Nields-"I will just
pate the issues on the law to the jury
The court, IN his charge told the jury
bat the case is submitted to them on
be law and the facts as they had heard
ZEN within the past two days.
Judge Wales then reviewed the facts
NFletiy exhibiting the note in question
lich he read as follows:
PHILADELPHIA, 3lst July, 1891
Twelve months after date ! promise tC
nay to the order of Jennie Kline two
lousand five hundred dollars at 723 South
rect, Philadelphia, without defalcation
@aue received. NJ. +. Poole.
The note was endorsed by De Coz
rothers and by De Con Bros. Co., IL
Moody, Treas. On the face of the
ote was the date of protest .-
The endorsement OF Jennie. Kline j!
Hebrew and above those of the d.
fous
Judge Wales explained the reason o
he two De Cou endorsements. Tn
Fcond being necessary on account o
lc Incorporation of tine firm subsequen
us getting possession OF the note.
The court referred to the main ant
*erllnent testimony that within a weel
the purchase of the store and good
oole found himself defrauded ant
implanted at once to Kline.
In the course of business Kline passet
pc note to DE Cou Brothers. A repre-
ntative of the latter obtained from MI
cole his acknowledgment of the sigma
are, but warned him not TO accept thu
Ole, as it was given under fraud anC
Misrepresentation. This, however, a
CARDS the warning, is denied By d
gu: This is the issue between the tw
PARTIES.
There are two issues, the first is as Il
neither De Cou got this notice fror
DOLE. The jury who heard the evidenc
n both sides will have to determine o
PC conflicting testimony.
Inc second point is that supposin
III jury determine that De Cou did sc
is notlce, they have then to conside
hether the goods were bad and not a
presented. There is contradiction
sIlmony in regard to that. If til
Wy nha that notice was given, then
nc goods are of any value that valu
Pnst De considered in favor of De Coz
me amount of the note and intere;
Inc jury retired at 1O.45.
IN the endorsement of Jennie Kiln
the note for $4,000 there came befoI
United States court for the fir!
'ne the record of a signature in Hebrew