Primary tabs

Deposition of William Conn


August 29, 1775.

The Committee having taken the conduct of Mr˙ Hunt into consideration, are of opinion that he has, by issuing the above-mentioned summons and prosecuting the same, endeavoured, as much as in him lies, to contravene the Association entered into by the Continental Congress, and that he has not acted with candour in declaring, "that when he ordered the writ to he issued, he did not know or believe that Mr˙ Schlosser had detained the Linen, for which he had issued the summons, as a member of this Committee, under a suspicion that it had been imported Conrrary to the Association of the Congress," which will fully appear by the following affidavit:

William Conn, of the City of Philadelphia, maketh oath: That as he passed the house of Mr˙ George Schlosser, of the said City, on Thursday, the 17th instant, with three pieces of Linen in his hand, Mr˙ Schlosser called him, and asked if they were for sale, to which he replied they were, and delivered one of the pieces into the hands of Mr˙ Schlosser, expecting he meant to bargain for it; but instead of doing so Mr˙ Schlosser inquired how he came by it: that he, the said Conn, evaded the question by a feigned story, thinking it hard to be so closely pressed to say how he came by it; hereupon Mr˙ Schlosser told him it was his duty as a Committee-man to inquire, and would not part with the Linen until he was satisfied how it was imported; that he (Conn) need not be uneasy that the Linen was detained, but if he was so, he should have security for the safe return of it as soon as it should appear to have been imported according to the Continental Association. He, the said Conn, then said Mr˙ Schlosser might do as he pleased, as he could prove that he came honestly by the Linen; that hereupon he, the said Conn, applied to Mr˙ Ackroyd' s clerk (Mr˙ Ackroyd not being at home) and obtained a certificate signed by him, that the piece of Linen then in question had been sold by himself for Mr˙ Ackroyd to the said Conn, and delivered the same to Mr˙ Schlosser, demanding his Linen. Mr˙ Schlosser said the certificate was not satisfactory; and that although he knew Mr˙ Ackroyd, he did not know his clerk; however, that he would lay the whole before the Committee, who would meet shortly and judge of it. That on Saturday, the 19th instant, he, the said Conn, having called at Mr˙ Schlosser' s house several times, and not finding him at home, grew dissatisfied, and applied to George Bryan, Esq˙, and informed him that he had a complaint to make concerning a piece of Linen detained from him, and was proceeding to relate his case when Mr˙ Bryan (before he had time to mention Mr˙ Schlosser' s being a Committee-man) stopped him and said it was a matter he had nothing to do with — it was the business of a lawyer. That he, the said Conn, having some knowledge of Isaac Hunt, Esq˙, applied to him, and informed him fully of his case, and in particular did acquaint Mr˙ Hunt that Mr˙ Schlosser had said he detained the piece of Linen as a Committee-man; Mr˙ Hunt gave it as his opinion that the piece of Linen might be recovered by a suit at law, and at the request of him, the said Conn, did commence a suit against the said George Schlosser acccordingly.


Sworn before me this 25th day of August, A˙ D˙ 1775:


Ordered, That the above be published.