Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-06-07
MAYOR MACEE OF DOVER
WITNESS IN COURT HERE
In the Suit of Rachlin Clothes
Shop to Recover In
suranCe.

The suit OF the Rachlin Clothes Shop
Of Dover against several insurance
companies wns resumed In the Su-
perior Court here today.
More testimony was heard before
Judges Rice and Rodney and jury
in the Superior Court yesterday after
noon. when Arley n. Magee. mayor of
Dover. and president OF the Dover Ia
surance Company. appeared for the
defense In the case OF the Rachlin
Clothes shop. Inc. against five in
surance companies. to recover t24 900
damages alleged to have been sustain
ed on the night of August "a 1921,
when the Rachlin store at Dover was
destroyed by fire.
Mr.. Magee. in his testimony, de-
clared that he had made out the bill
of sale on the property which Manuel
Cohen purcha sed from II. II. Berman. b.
the former owner, when II was turned
over TO the Rachlin company. az which
time additional insurance was asked
for by Mr.. RaChlin. Mr.. Magee said
that he was informed that In addition
to the stock purchased from Cohen,
some additional stock from the store
ferred to the Dover store. on which
an additional $4,000 insurance was
requested. making a total Of $4,000
insurance with the Dover Company.
In detail Mr.. Masee informed the
court Of the fire. He referred 10 tho
tardiness OF the manager of the Dover
store who seemed TO take little or. no
interest during the time the store
was on FIRE That the Dover firemen
threatened 10 turn the streams OF
water on the manager and run him
out Of town was also empha sized by
Mayor Magee
That Rachlin had requested more
Insurance was brought out in the cross
examination by Mr.. Hastings. counsel
for the plaintiff. Mr.. Magee stated
that when he visited the Rachlin store
few nights before the fire much OF
the stock was Of cheap and shoddy
material.
A motion to the court by Mr.. Hast.
inEs TO have all the testimony stricker
from the record relative to the origir
of the fire resulted in considerabl,
argument by MIR. Chestnut, counsel fol
the defense.
At no time during the testimony OF
the plaintiff. Mr.. Chestnut contended
was the origin Of the fire discussed
There are only two possible explana
tons for the fire. Mr.. Chestnut tolC
the court. They are. he said spon
taneous combustion, or wilful pre-
meditation. IL has been proven b,
testimony. he argued, that there wa,
nothing in the building which coulC
have caused a fire by spontaneous
combustion. 1t was shown that Mr.
Goldstein. the manager of the Dove
store. was the only person who ha,
possession of the KEYS to the store
and who had access TO the building a
the time.
In his argument, Mr.. Chestnut con
tended that the corporation shoul,
be held responsible for the acts o
its agents or managers. quoting from
numerous laws on similar cases. H
argued that either Rachlin or Gold
stein deliberately set the Dover .stor
on fire and the corporation should b
held responsible and not be allowed {
receive the insurance money.
Mr.. Chestnut also called attention :
: the fact that none Of the plaintiff
. witnesses, although they testified full
: to other details, made no attempt {
: explain the cause OF the fire.
( According to Mayor Magee. the fir
= at the Rachlin store resembled on
we'll planned. The odor Of oil was /
! the air. he said. and the smoke a
q the time Of the fire was Of the kin
resulting only from oil. he thought.