Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-03-19

ley did not on January l4th give a mort
gage for 50, 600 to Ellen Gayley on prop
erty at Seventh and Market streets. In
reply to Mr.. Hilles Mr.. Talyor said
that they owed S6, 600 or 1000 to her.
At the time the mortgage was given
they had no idea of making an assign
ment. By the failure of l.. II. Taylor
a. Co., last December they had lost
$50, 600 to $50, 600.
Continuing the examination Mr..
Chandler asked Mr. Talyor in regard
TO the Tindall matter as he called it.
Mr.. Ialyor wanted a more specific ques-
tion. Mr.. Hlles objected to the ques-
tion on the ground that it was not the
case. They would be ready to meet
any action, but the present action was
upon Dilworth.
Edwin H. Gayley was the next wit
ness He said that he first saw Dill
worth February 23d. oath ,r 25th. He
did not know anything about the mat
ter until that time. He spoke of the
method of buying stock. In case the
name ia to be inserted in stock the
name is sent by mail. The firm became
embarrassed December 2lst by the fail
ure of l., II. Taylor & Co. They had
5000 shares of stock carried away.
Through that failure the credit of
Head &c Go. was shocked and Mr..
Gayley had discussed the situation
with officers of three leading local
banks, as to whether Head Il Co.,
should suspend or should raise the
money to buy in the stocks and con
tinue They estimated that Head IL
Co. ought to have $40, 600 or $50, 600.
Mr.. Gayley attempted TO borrow this
from personal friends, and he made an
agreement that il no did not get the
full amount he would not use any of
it. From the money received from
friends and as the proceeds of endorse
ments, they began TO buy back the
stocks. Two or three of tho people
who were going to.loan failed to do SO.
Mr.. Gayley saw that he could not get
the money and in order to keep his
word it was decided to sell all the
stock that had been bought. This
would put the business back where it
was To this end Mr.. Gayley sent one
order to the Philadelphia correspon-
dents, namely to sell all the stock. He
did not know at the time that Dill
worth's stock was among that which
was sold. The order for sale was dated
February 1st.
About the day before the warrant
was issued a friend telephoned MIR.
Gayley that he understood a warrant
was to be issued. The day it was is
sued witness saw Mr.. Chandler and
told him be was going to Philadelphia.
He went to Philadelphia and received
a telegram from his wife to come home
and be arrested.
In reply to Mr.. Chandler Mr.. Gayley
! said that the firm owed 50, 600 or 81, 600
for rent. Mr.. Chandler asked if they
did not owe about 500 to Mrs. Han.
son. Mr. Hilles objected to that ques-
tion saying that this was plain ques
tion of embezziement. Mr.. Chandler
wanted TO show that money had been
left with them for investment Mr..
Hilles said that they owed 1925, 600.
Mr.. Chandler held that they had done
what they had no right TO do; while
| they had enough money apparently in
bank to meet Dilworth's claim yet they
owed thousands for rent and thousands
in money that had been left for invest
ment.
This led Mr. Hilles to remark that if
| Mr.. Chandler conceived that he was
in the execution of his duty he had
his pity. Further than that Mr. Hilles
spoke of hlulting case criminal pro-
ccdure. After this squabble closed Mr..
Chandler resumed his examination,
Mr.. Gayley denied that they sold the
stock for the purpose of trying 10
bridge over the difficulty, to stay off
the failure. Mr.. Lackey had never
called his attention to the purchase of
the stock for Dilworth.
In reply to the question as to whether
he knew they had the money of others,
Mr.. Gayley said that they owed money.
Asked if he knew whether they checked
against their own money or other peo-
ple's he said he could not answer that
question. He swore that he drew no
checks between January 3lst and Feb
ruary 9th.
There arose a difficulty between OPP
posing counsel through Mr.. Chandler's
examination as to how the money was
handled. Mr.. Hilles declined to allow
the witness to be browbeaten, and Mr..
Ward made the observation that no
counsel for the prosecuting witness
should represent the State under any
circumstances.
Mr.. Chandler asked Mr.. Gayley a
question to this effect Do you consider
that it was not your duty to know
whether or not when you were giving
checks you we're checking out money
belonging to you or to Mr.. Dilworth or
Others
The question was not allowed.
DilwOrth was recalled for the State.
He said that he made no threats against
Mr.. Gayley or Mr.. Taylor. He brought
suit in order to get Justice. If he could
get his stock he would acknowledge
that he had got Justice.
Then came the argument. Mr.. Chan
dler argued as to the amenability of the
defendants under the law. 1t made no
difference if they did not know of the
receipt OF the money. In the First Ma
tional Bank there was 81, 100 left of the
81, 400. Head & Co., if not Mr.. Gay
ley. certainly Mr.. Taylor drew the
checks against that money. That was
a misapplication of the money. ii WAS
not denied by the defendants that the
money was used. and it was no excuse
that they did not know the money was
used. They had committed breach Of
the law. Every broker and real estate
dealer should know that he has no right
to use the money Of his customers.
In opening the argument for the de-
fence. Mr.. Hilles directed a few shafts
of sarcasm at the other side. OF Mr..
Dilworth he said that the bringing Of
the charge was not to his credit. He
made reference to the report that an
arrest was to be made and asked if ii
was an ordinary thing to spread a re-
port that you are going to arrest man,
He declared that the suit was conceived
in one purpose-to get the Justice Mr..
Dilworth said he would have got il
he got his money. The State had not
only failed to show fraudulent intent,
but il had been disproved. In REGARD