Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1897-12-09
nesses. William S. Hilles represents Mr.

ludt tuey Wdre lnHftlHu III lOJh lu
Elizabeth, n. D., and came to this
city, where they lived with his mother
April 18th, 1905, Murphey went to
London, Eng. to give Instructions on
! morocco. shaving machines Mira. Muir
phey remained with her mother in Inv
until june and received $40 out of her
husbands wages from Inc firm for
which he worked. But he wrote only
once to her in the two anu half years
during which he waa abroad. And
this, in spite of the fact that she had
child, After failing to receive any
more money from her husband the
young wife went to the country as a
domestic at 81, 30 week. Murphey
returned to this city October iOtb, but
| did not go to nee his wife and child.
and ahe bal him arrested for non.
support. In his own defence Murphey,
who was represented by Walter Ii.
Hayes, SAID that ne was IN such moor
health while abroad that he did not
have regular employ mont, hut he did
not satisfactorily explain why he did
not correspond with his wife.
In reply to Judge Spruance both
Murphey and his wife said they wero
willing TO live together. DR.. George
II. Carmichael testified that in hiH
oninion, Murphey had consumption.
The court decided that tina husband
should endeavor to supnort wife ard
child and continued the case until thu
February torn. Judge Spruance ad-
vised Murphny TO do no shamming.
In the desertion case Mrs. Richard
Tierney against her husband, Tierney
was directed to pay hia wife So a
month for herself aud child, to make
1 thn frat lth and
to give security for $500.
The contested liquor license applica-
tions were considered by the Court of
General Sessions Saturday. Michael
Grady applied for a license to conduct
hotel and sell liquor at the northeast
corner of Third ami King streeta. Will
liam S. Prickett, attorney for the Law
and Order Society, opposed license
for the place. Peter Il. Cooper, Jr.,
represented Grady, and said that the
applicant proposed TO have stahling ac-
commodation ON French street below
Fourth. peter j. Ford testified that
there were no hotels in that vicinity
and be believed the one sought for was
necessary. james Grubh and a. q.
Wi,el also testified in tho case.
John Hanrahan applied for license
for the Pennsylvania Hotel, southeast
corner Of Front and King streets. This
place was formerly run by Fergus and
julia Hanrahan, parents of the present
applicant. Mr.. Prickett had some evil
dence against the place as conducted
by the parents and asked the court as
TO its competency. No connection WAS
shown between the present applicant
and the misconduct Of the place, and
because it is an established hotel, the
court saw no reason to turn him down.
Peter L. Cooper, Jr., represented Han
rahan.
The applications of Theresa b. Cree
don, Hockeasin, and Margaret Cook,
this city, wore Withdrawn.
The court granted the Ilanranan
license and refused tho Grady appli-
cation.
Ward meetings. kegs of hser and
other "political worl'' are rather OK
pansile luxuries for the wouldbe
public officer, according to the story
told by John Levy in Superior Court
J Monday in the case of John Levy
J vs. Paul Gillis. Mr.. Levy sues to re-
cover about s720 for soode sold and do.
livered and money loaned to Mr.. Gillis
in the campaigns OF 1892 and 1891.
Peter L. Cooper, Jr., represented Levy,
and Philip @. Churchman, Gillis.
! Mr.. Gillis was candidate for the
Hheriifalty nomination in 1892 and thu
successful nominee in 1894. Tho totul
/ amount claimed by Levy is about s120.
He testified that in January, tebru
ary, March, April and May. 1892, he
loaned the sheriff money, Si5 to S6U d
month until May, when he loaned biu
, more than S200. Notwithstanding Mr..
\ Lovy's efforts .. that campaign Mr..
! Gillis failed to secure tho nomination.
When the nomination of 1894 drew
near, Mr.. Gillis desired Levy to worl
+ for him ngain, according to Levy. The
latter told the would. be sheriff that ht
{ could not afford to do it. Then he sale
, Mr.. Gill,s promised him that if b,
would 90 into this nomination and bt
3 at his heck and call, Mr.. Gillis woult
Q pay him. So Mr.. Levy went to WORK
t again. He now claims pay for G4 days
{ work for Mr.. Gillis in January, Fehru
s AIRY, March aud April. He said ne ha(
4 to hire man to do his farming. Fo
2 Mr.. Gillis he acted as representative
. at meetings. ''All these meutiug
F. meant a keg of beer, overy one o
them, said Levy. For instance a
. Hugh McConnell's order beer was sen
: TO one of the eugInehouaes. More thai
2 $50 was spent for beer. Mr.. Gillis sait
0 he was member Of church and i
Y would not do for him to buy the beer
/ Levy also awore that he endorsed
note for MIR. Gillis for the sum of $50
which note went to protest.
j On cross examination, Levy said b.
S kept no account of the amounts h
q loaned Mr.. Gillis and he could not h
: exact as TO tho total, hut placed ii n
/ about $3.50. For Mr.. Gilis he woult
Y nay the expenses of meetings. Ho wa
ianitor of the Court House in 1892 ant
/ 1893.
! In explaining to Mr.. Churchmal
9 some of tine work he did Levy sait
D that Mcconnell would be talking TO
t crowd of men and ne tLevyl would ioil
Q them. Mcdonnell would ask whom tn
j country people wanted for sheriff ant
I Levy would reply: "Gillis
1 Pressed for other details of tn
political works Levy said "There wer
0 a good many things done | wouldn'
t like to tell and you wouldn't like I,
n hear it," And later he said: Timing
8 had to be done and you know wha
they were. "
The cross examination was still il
t progress when court adjourned unit
8 2.30 o'clock, p. M.
The appeal case of John S. Rossel
o VS.. BENJAMIN i. Bartram was con
g tinueh until the next term. This j
o tho case in which Mr.. Hartram laid al
: attachment on money of Daniel W
Taylor's in the hands of Mr.. Rossell
The Fahey VS.. Berger case was ais
Q continued.