Lewistown gazette. [volume] (Lewistown, Pa.) 1843-1944, 1861-04-18

iel Conrod. There was some HluStc IN this
case. The conduct Of Rebecca was described
as Of q rather Amazonian character. The
proyocation for Der assault and battery was
an alleged slandering of her name and fame
by the aforesaid Daniel The Jury acquitted
her, but made her pay half the costs, and
Daniel the other half.
Same VS.. W. WIson-same offence, ignor-
ed, and A. 4. Nelson, prosecutor, to pay the
costs. The latter gentleman not coming to
time" when the sentence was to be pronounc
ed, the court awarded bench warrant fer
his arrest.
Same vs.. Charles Nesbi5. colored-indict-
ment larceny of a bed tick, on the oath of
Mrs Eliza Sollafeldt The deft established
a title to the property, which the jury regard
ed as better than that Of the prUseeutrix, and
acquitted him without leaving the box.
Same VS.. Charles Green-indictment larce
ny of buffalo robe, the property of Dr.. s
S. Cummings. This dett is better known by
the classic appellation Of Green Top" and
from his habit of Lying around loose" it did
not appear that his appropriation OF the robe
was with felonious intent, but TO protect
him from freezing one winters night that he
slept in Maj. Buoy's stable, and he was ac
quilted.
Same vs.. William Ewing-indictment sell
i4iiZ lAliuOT u iBlIOES. II EOuiI Only ne
proved that Mr.. Ewing, who is sort Of legal
quack at Newton Hamilton, had giren, not
sold, liquor to a minor in a single instance
and the Indictment not providing for that
contingency, he was acquitted. but found
guilty Of one half the costs, and the prcseCu
tor, John Hughes, the other half both of
whom we're sentenced accordingly, and are
working il out in board at the county insti-
tuition on West Market street.
Same VS.. same. Two other indictments
were found against this deft one for keep
ing gambling house, and another for selling
liquor without license. d. W Woods, ESQ.
counsul for deGt, moved to quash these two
indictments on the ground that while they
were charged in the information made before
Justice Morrison, he bad only been bound
over to answer at court by the justice to an
sweT a single charge, on which he had been
tried and acquitted. This was resisted BY
the district attorney and Mr.. Utley, for the
commonwealth, and the motion was dismis
sed.
Same vs.. John Dipple--two indictments
one for selling liquor on Sunday, and one for
selling le-ardent to minors. Both were ig-
nored, and John Hughes, prosecutor, made
to pay the costs, who was sentenced accord.
ingly, and is boarding them out in charge Of
Sheriff Stanbarger.
Same VS.. JOHN Hughes, Henry p Hughes
and Jacob SmIth-indictment riot. Ignored
and county to pay costs. Another Newton
Hamilton affair.
Same V. William Lytle-indictment Oh
tanning money under false pretences Con
tinued, and deft. entered into recognzance.
Tavern Licences were granted to all the
applicants except William Swinehart. of
Milroy, and Henry Selfridse, Of Belleville,
whose applications were continued, and vii
lis '. 3. Coplin, Of Milroy. remonstrance
was presented against the latter, and u large
number OF witnesses subpRnRed to prove
that liquor had been sold to Incorporate per
sons, to minors and on the Sabbath, in yio
lation Of the law. The testimony elicted
from these witnesses proved both the AIilroy
houses equally culpablc, but as no orportu-
nifty had been afforded Mr.. Swinehart to be
heard in self defence, his application was
continued. The objection to Mr. Selfridge
mainly grew cat Of the alleged unfit coudi
ton Of his house az a house Of entertain.
ment. This Was partially admitted, Lut it
was cOntendcd that repairs were c0ntempla
ted which had been hitherto impracticablc
owing 10 Its being in the possession Of an
other tenant, who had refused 10 permit
them to be made during his incuubency.-
His case was continued 10 enable him to re
tFt his house.
Licenses for sale Of liquors by merchants
were granted 70 iianaker E Co. and Nathan
iel Kennedy, LewisUoTn.
COMMON PLEAS.
Andrew McFarIane, Davis Bates, Samuel
Barr and William Thompson VS.. Ker Brcn.
nman & Co--a feigned issue under the inter
pleader act, to determine the right Of the
Plfs. to a part of a fund in Court aris;n from
a Sherif's Sale Of personal property at the
Lewistown mills on Fl. Fa. VS.. John Sterrett
and others. 4 verdict, by consent. was rem
dered for Plfs. for $3j0. The balance Of
fund to 60 to Dcfts. Alexander and Elder
f5r PIfs., and d. ". audS. S. Woods for
Da:ts.
Mary Ann MilHken vs.. Samuel Milliken
and John Beatty, who survived David MILF
ken-An ejecuaenJ 10 recover lOt Of ground
with two houses, in Beleville. After iury
sworn, the case compromised, DefIs. Welding
the possession Of the property, and PFC. her
claim for Mesne profits. Benedict ara X and
J. W. Parker for pI!fs., and u. ". Woods fox
Defts.
Joseph Gibbons indorser of John Pelen vs..
William Reed-An action Of Debt On prom
issory note. Verdict FOR Plf. for S354 Fl.
der fer PIf., Reed for Deft.
James W. Sellers, indorser Of I. Z. Star
ret5 and Jos. Scott rs. Francis r. Sterrett and
Joseph Scott. Az action of Debt on several
promissory notes. Verdict for PIG. for
$2204,70. 4. Parker for PlF d. W. Woods
for Deft.
Matilda Vert, ra. John Hunter. John
Montgomery and VIM. Reed. Action Of Debt
on promissory note. Verdict for PHI. for
$34,97. Alexander for Plf, J. W. Parker
for Deft.
Myers, kirkpatrick 6 Co. vs.. James Me-
Curdy. Action Of Deft. for Goods sold and
delivered. Verdict for Plfs Sl78,07. Elder
for Plfs, s. s. Woods for Deft
Zeigler & Willis for Geo. w. Thomas. re.
ceiyer, vs.. ). A. Cuninghen's admrs Action
for money had and received for use Of PIfs.
technically an action Of tresspass on the