Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1865-11-10


were disposed of by the Blair county Court at
its late session, from the Altoona Tribune
Several of the parties named are well known
in this county:
Court was IN session at Hollidaysburg dur
the entire of last week and the greater part
OF the present week, every day Sunday ex-
eepted) and several nights being occupied in
disposing Of cases broughtup for adjudication.
1t was noticeable fact that more persons
were in attendance during the first week of
tho term than at any time since the breaking
out Of the rebellion, and as the proceedings Of
that week are alone ofpublic interest, we ap-
pend the details of the several cases as we
find them in our Hollidaysburg exchanges.
The great trial of the session was that of the
Burkholder family and others upon the charge
of stealing goods at various times from the
cars of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company
at this place. The trial excited more than
usual interest and formed altogether one of
the saddest spectacles ever presented to a
court of justice. An almost entire family ac
cused of high misdemeanor, and after a
fair and impartial trial found guilty as to all
but one of the parties implicated 1t ia diff
cult to account for the mis-doings of so many
of the same household, fer above want and
its attendant temptations, upon any other hy-
| pothesis than that of monomania for steal
ing Be that as it may, they have been prac-
tically taught the bitter lesson that ''the way
of the transgressor is hard, and their case
should serve as warning for all lime to come
to evil-doers of every grade. tits matter of
regret that the greatest villain of them all
should have escaped merited punishment by
turning States evidence, but branded as a
| thief and Judas, his position among those
who know him win be far from an enViable
one, and his conscience, If it be not entirely
deadened, should goad him to follow to the
end the career of his ancient prototype. The
man who would willingly become partici
pant in crime of any kind, may in certain
cases be worthy of sympathy, but he who
takes prominent part IN the commission of
crime, and when punishment threatens,
treacherously betrays his companions in guilt
in order to secure his own safety, ia too low
in the scale of humanity to be worthy of an
honest mans contempt.
The first case tried was one on the civil
list, and as its details are somewhat interest
ing, we give place to them:
David Deeter and others vs.. Jacob Deeter,
Joseph Smith, James Denniston and others,
terra tenants.
1t appeared that one Daniel Deeter, Of
North Woodberry township, died intestate in
1850, leaving, besides other property, a farm
in said township which, in proceedings in
partition, was appraised at the sum of six
thousand dollars. This farm was taken at the
appraisement by Jacob Deetor, the eldest son,
one Of the defendants in this suit, who enter
ed into reeognizance in the Orphans Court to
pay to the other heirs, his ten brothers and
sisters, six of whom were the plaintiffs in this
suit, their respective shares in the appraised
value of the farm. In the spring of 1853
receipt in full, purporting to be signed by six
of the heirs (the present plaintiffs) was fled
| in the office of the Clerk of the Orphans
| Court, and its substance entered on the same
page with the recognisance. Previous to the
filing of this receipt the co-securities of Ja
cob Deeter had been by paper under seal
released from liability. In August, 1858,
Jacob Deeter sold the farm to Smith & DEN
niston for the sum of nine thousand dollars,
all of which was paid to Jacob in one form or
other, and none of it was received by the
heirs, because the docket as before stated, led
Smith & Denniston to believe the reeognizance
was satisfied, and that the heirs had been
paid in full. In 1860, however, the six heirs
whose names appeared to the receipt, institu
alleging that they had not received any por-
ton of their shares of the appraised value of
the property. Their claim, at the time the
the suit was tried, amounted with interest, to
very nearly SIX thousand dollars, and as Jacob
Deeter had become insolYent after the sale of
the farm, the effect of judgment in their
favor would have been to make Smith h Den
niston pay the $4,000 twice. Il was alleged
that the receipt was forgery, that the names
had been, as was intimated, affixed by Jacob
himself. To prove this the pffs. called the
subscribing witness, Jacob Counsman, who
sWore that he believed his name, as it appear
ed on the receipt was his signature and that
the word toitness Immediately above it was in
his handwriting, yet he had no recollection of
ever signing the paper, nor did he remember
of ever seeing them sign it. 1t was proved that
Jacob Deetor had boasted of his expertness
with the pen, and said be could counterfeit any
ones signature that it could not be detected
DEPENDENTS showed that about the time the re-
ceipt bore date, plaintiffs had received from
Jacob hisindividual promissory notes in about
the sum respectively due them, and they ale.
ged that these notes could have been given for
no other purpose than in consideration of the
heirs signing the receipt. There was also
evidence given on the part of the plaintiffs to
show that Barbara Deeter, one of the sign.
ers, was insane. In reply to this defendants
alleged that as the family had in the proceed
ings in partition, and in the release of the CO.
sureties, also in the bringing of the then
pending suit, treated her as sane, the terre-
tenants, Smith & Denniston, could not be
supposed to know that she was otherwise, and
therefore any loss which resulted must fallon
her. The Court charged the jury that if they
believed the receipt forgery they should
bring in verdict for the plaintiffs, but that il
they believed it genuine, even if the sigma
lures had been obtained by artifce or undue
influence, innocent purchasers must not suf
g. ord tl,os- ,,ar,1,ot sbou1d ha c. 1rc.-d