Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1902-06-05
i. c. ROBINSON ACQUITTED
Vhe Court InstruCtS the Jury TO Give a
Verdict Of Not Guilty.
FALSE PRETENGE NOT
SHOWN BY THE STATE
Exceptions in Pyle Divorce
Case.
MILLER MUST SUPPORT HIS CHILDREN

In the General Sessions Court
Attorney General WardThursday morn
Inc dropped tho case against the three
Poles charged with embezZlement as
bailcc The jury had disagreed. Mr..
Ward said that the prisoners had been
in iail three months, and there were
certain questions in the case which
made it proper in his estimation to
have the case nolle prosequied.
The PUGET case went to the Jury on
tho charge of Chief Justice Lore. Tho
Jury, after about ID minutes delibera-
ton returned verdict of not guilty.
Pucci was released.
Henry @. Robinson was put on trial
in General Sessions Court Thursday
afternoon on the charge of false pre-
fences towards William II. Lungren, in
that he represented that he had bought
stock, whereas, under the allegation of
the Indictment, he had not done so.
The State was represented by Deputy
Attorney General Robert II. Richards
end l. Irving Handy, and the defend
ant by William S. Hilles.
The Jury comprised Alfred G. Brooks,
Allison S. Truitt, Frederick Darling
on Frank kamether, William Law
ton John @. Stuckert, John ID. Roy
nods Joseph b. Deakyne, Willis
Blackburn, Lewis +. Talley, Marshall
Il, Lloyd, John W. Mccoy.
Mr., Lungren, who is general foreman
II tho p, W. Il u. railroad shops,
Hstiiod that May 10th, 1901, he ordered
100 shares of Reading, second preferred,
by telephone, and little later, was in
formed by telephone that the stock had
been bought Later in tho day, he went
to the office of II. II. Robinson IL Co.,
whero Henry G. Robinson presented
him u bill for the stock at % 5-l6 u
share and sl2, 80 brokerage, total,
S2,AR -. Mr.. Robinson had drawn up
check for tho amount, which Mr..
Lungren signed. He received re-
Ccipted bill. lie was informed that the
stock would be delivered four or five
days later, but he never received it.
The bill and the check were put In
evidence.
Mr.. Lungren, on May 10Th, went to
Philadelphia to see if the stock had
been transferred to him. He found that
ii had not been, and came back to Will
mington and informed Henry 9. Robin
son what he HAD learned Mr.. Robinson
said he had not heard of it, and the
witness told Mr.. Robinson that he
would hold him to accountability for
the stock.
On cross examination, Mr.. Lungren
said Robert &. Hartman had formerly
been his attorney, but he had with
drawn and now Mr.. Handy is his attor-
ney. Mr.. Hilles asked whether Mr..
Hartman had not advised him that "a
criminal prosecution would not prove
successful, but the court would not
allow the question. While Mr.. Lungren
was testiifyng he was asked what com
pany was the transfer agent of the
Philadelphia IS Reading Co., but he
could not be sure. So he was asked to
step aside while that fact was proven
by Charles q. Blandy, u Philadelphia
stock broker. When Mr.. Handy asked
Mr.. Blandy il he knew who was the
transfer agent of the Philadelphia u
Reading Railroad Co. tho witness said
there was no such company. Mr.. Hilles
objected to any further question be-
cause the Indictment alleges that the
stock was that known as Philadelphia
" Reading railroad stock, and the
court sustained the objection.
Mr.. Handy then desired to cross.
examine the witness because his testi-
mony had been u surprise, but the
court would not permit him.
James b. Clarkson, treasurer of the
Security Trust and Safe Deroslt Co.
testified that the Lungren check was
presented, as he believed, by Mr.. Rob
inson, and the trust company directed
Drexel Il Co., Philadelphia, to pay the
amount to Robinson IL 900, Philadel-
phia. The money was paid, and was
charged against Mr.. Lungren's account
at the trust company.
Mr. Blandy was put on the stand
again, and said he was employed last
May by Robinson & Co., in Philadel-
phia, the firm consisting of j. Norris
Robinson and Henry {. Robinson.
The bill, submitted by Henry G.
Robinson, was shown the witness, and
he was asked il there was any such
stock at that time as Philadelphia &
Reading second preferred. lie said he
did not know of any.
On discrimination, he said the
Philadelphia firm received the money
and the stock was bought. Mr.. Handy
wanted this testimony stricken out,
and it was stricken out.
The State rested and Mr.. Hilles
asked the court to return verdict
of not guilty. He held that the proof
varied from the allegation in the in
dictment.
Mr.. Handy maintained that the owl
luIN.
The court declined to grant the APP
plication.
II. C. ROBINSON ON THE STAND.
The defence opened Friday morning.
Henry 9. Robinson went on the stand
and testified that on May 10th, 1901,
he was in the brokerage business. Mr..
Lungren called him to the telephone
and asked how much Reading was
selling at. When Mr.. Robinson in.
formed him, he ordered 100 shares, anC
Mr.. Robinson gave the order to JESSE
I. Workman, his telegraph operator,
who later told him the stock had beer
bought. Later in the day Mr.. Lungren
visited the office, asked for the bill
and check blank, had Mr.. Robinson
ill out the check and signed it.
Mr.. Robinson explained that the ole
company was called Philadelphia &
Reading.but tho company is now called
the Reading. He had called it Phila
delphia & Reading on the bill by in
Rdvertence
When Mr.. Lungren demanded hi.
stock, Mr.. Robinson said he directed
Operator Workman to ask Philadelphi;
why the stock had not been transferred
TO Mr.. Lungren, and the operator, afte
telegraphing, said he was informed
that it would be attended to imme
diately
Mr.. Robinson stated that he hat
received from Philadelphia a statemen
4 showing the purchase of the stock H
was asked by Mr.. Hilles whether tn
Philadelphia firm of Robinson & Co
failed and said it did. He did no
Know anything about the business o