The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-05-02
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

Court of Common PleRs-Judge PIERCE
Tlt'ow VS.. Titlow This is feigned issue to deter
mne the validity of will the allegation being that
the testatOr was Ct unsouDd mind. Before reuorted
lhis morning the plaintIffs moved for the with.
arawal oil juror on the ground that one of the
Jurors in the had since the adjournment of the
Court Yesterday, improperly engaged IN cenversa-
tiOn with Of the defendants witnesses In refer
ence to the case and that he and certain of the te
PENDANTS had been at hotel together drinking.
Witnesses were heard IN support OF the motion
witness who testified that his conversation with the
juror was in relation to horses, and that nothing
was sald about the case on trial. The defendant was
conversation with t. juror whatever. Judge Pierce
sald that the explanation was not entirely salts.
was repnmanded. Both sides then agreed to 60 on
with the remaining eleven jurors, and the was
resumed.
District Court No. I-President Judge
ShaIswoOd. = Smith vs Adams & LEWIS. An &C ion
OF Ioyer to recover 1or the alleged conversion by
defendants of certain FIve-twentV United States
b. nds which were deposited with them, as is
alleged, by an agent OF plaintiff The defense set
up was that credit lor the deposit was given the
al eyed agent nersonaly, without knowledge OF the
agency, and that his account was drawn. Before
reported. Verdict Tor plaintiff for $32, $40.
Elizabeth Haenn, administrative Of A exander
Haenn, deceased, vs.. Louisa Kindt administrators
OF Fe er Klndt, deceased An action to recover for
goods alleged to have been sold by A exanoer
ndt IN their lifetime. On trial
MsGJhI sOurt No Judge Hare.-BObeIt
B KIrSpatick VS.. Edwin kirkpatrick and Jac b
r. Lex. An action in the case TO recover damages
for ALLEGED conspiracy between defendants, ID
Withdraw certain p1rtnershlp' funds from the firm
of which plaintiff and defendants were members IN
1856. by means of which the firm which, as IS
alleged, before that time was prosperous became in
solvent. The defense had not opened when we
osed our report. On trlal
e0uru of Quarter SessiOns-Allison, p. J -
John Deal and LOUIS Holman were C arged with
a cross bill of assault and battery. Deal attempted
to prove that Hoffman had assaulted h IN once III q
bar room, and once at Grard Pmk, but he 1ailed to
prove anything Hoffman was waking at Girard
Park with some ladies' but as Deal was standing IN
the way, Holman asked him to move
Deal lhen SAID he intended to kl Hoffman, and
rushed upon him with q knife; he made a thrust
OF Hoffman with the knife but fortunately cut only
the coat. Hoffman called for help, and when he
obtained assistance Deal was dlsarmed. Hoffman
wus acquitted, and Deal convicted.
John Phaf was acquitted of charge of assault
and la terry upon Mary Ann Carol
John Muhn and Mary Gill were acquitted of O
charge OF assault and battery uUOn Nicholas GenB.
Mary Ann MeDtz was acquitted Of charge of tine
larceny OF millinery goods to the amount OF S26 3d.
property Of Martha Hagan The prOsecutrlX alleged
that the defendant had been in her employ for
time, and attended 10 the buslness while the prose-
cutr1X was out she missed so ne articles, and found
upon the sisters OF the defendant goods correspon-
dino 10 those that were miss no.
She had these sisters (sstersin.awl as Witne sses
ana t1ey gave in some very bit er evidence. But 1t
seems that Ill will existing between these sisters
in-law and defendant, on account of suit brought
by deeno ant against her hush md for deseruon, So
their testimony of but little weight There vas
witness i0r prosecution, who SAID tnat there was
no other ribbon IN market like that of Mrs dagan's
tOund upOn de endant; thus gong to prove that 1t
came from Yrs. HaPan's alone
But thus was cOntradlcted by witness for deten-
0ant, who sald that dat man ouehpnt say dat Tor
l say dat 10 de customer ven / want TO sell goods
Ribbon like dat is made in hundred thousand fac
torres" The prosecution then ca led for witness
when voice answered She couldn't come; she is
dead" In short. IL was what the District Attorney
said 1t was, "smal potatoes and the jury found it
their duty TO acquit defendant.