The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-02-12

none oil the cases on the Days list being ready
for trial. the Court adjourned at an early hour.
DISTRICT CoURT No. 2-President JUDGE Shars-
wood.-Paul vs.. Persch Il Steen. This was an
action to recover the amount OF certain bal
ance due plaintiff on HIS account as a depositor
with the defendants, who are bankers in Third
street.
The defense allege that in the year 1852 the
plaintiff applied to them to discount notes of the
Rhode Island Central Bank TO the amount OF
S443, and that on his representation that Drexel
4 Son had offered TO discount them for one
quarter per cent, they were induced to take
them at that rate Two or three days afterwards
the notes we're returned to them as worthless,
the bank being broken bank.
On applying to the plaintiff to redeem them
he SAID he would make it all right, but this has
never been done. The defendants therefore,
claim to set of this amount, which is largely In
excess of the balance on their books in favor of
plaintiff, against his claim in this action. On
trial. Moses A. Dropsie ESQ.,, for plaintiff;
Frederick Heyer, Esq, for defendants.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-Judge Pierce-The
Court was IN session for u short time this morn
ing hearing On application in equity.
COURT OF QUARTER SEss1oNs-Judge Ludlow
Conrad Sakel pleaded guilty to charge of
The latter said he had employed Sakel to work
for him, which he did Tor about four weeks,
boarding and sleeping in the house. On New
Years night he stole the coat and other
clothing and decamped
Daniel Holt was charged with stealing dog,
the property OF John Clancy. Clancy said the
dog had been given to him by a friend, since
dead and that soon after he had the dog regis
tered, and paid taxes on and had peaceable posses
sion OF him until the alleged larceny by Holt.
Holt on the other hand, claimed prior owner
ship OF the animal; and it beng question of
disputed property, the District Attorney said the
charge of larceny must fall. He therefore sub
mitted The bill, ana asked the jury to acquit.
George Ashton was convicted OF stealing six
pockeDoo and a showcase.
William Foote was convicted of charge OF
1.nNN AT.n1.
in evidence that defendant first struck Gould in
the face, and afterwards drew a knife upon GER
tain parties who interlered in his behalf
James Buchanan, ,ycungster, was charged
Fisher, and worth S25. The coat was stolen
from a room in the Inquirer Building, 304 Ches
nut street. The night after the larceny Bucha-
nan acknowledged to having committed it, and
stated that he had sold it in South street for
$3.50. Toe jury convicted
Mary Ingraham was charged with stealing a
cloak and other properly worth S72, belonging
to Mary Manton. The defendant was living in
the family of Mrs. Manton. The goods we're
pawned ana we're recovered, but the Common
wealth falling to identify the defendant with
sufficient certainty as the woman who pawned
the property, the jury acquitted.
Catharine Mengless was charged with re-
ceiving dresses, the property Of Joseph Mont
gomery, knowing the same to have been stolen.
The goods were recovered at pawnbrOker's
but the Commonwealth failed to show that the
uC'SLuoAlt Pd"hCu VLSLn' LhS jury OhSAOlOAO
acquitted
James Norton and Annie Norton were charged
with stealing dry goods and money amounting
to one hundred and sixteen dollars, the property
OF Thomas jackson. The property was taken
from the house of prosecutor, No. 222 Christian
street. Annie Norton, one of the defendants,
was shown to have been in the mouse the even
ing the larceny was committed, and with her
husband, the other defendant, went to Trenton
a day or two after.
She acknowledged to the stealing of S31 in
money and some of the goods, but not all. Part
ot the money she returned. The Common wealth
also showed that she pawned some Of the stolen
goods. Mrs. Norton denied that her husband
had any hand in the larceny or that ne knew
anything about it, The jury convicted the wife
and acquitted the husband.
William j. Burney was charged with larceny
as baIlee OF valise and some 1895, the property
OF George II. Woods, and also his discharge from
the army, and some clothing. 'The prosecutor
is DISCHARGED soldier, and last Monday stopped
at a tavern kept by a man named Biddle in
Market street between Eighteenth and Nine
teenth. His vase, containing his money, dis
charge and clothing, was handed to the defen-
dant, Burrey, son-n-law and barkeeper for Bid
! die, who put it behind the bar. The next day
the vallse and contents had disappeared, and
neither Biddlen or BuIney could tell anything
| about it.
The defense was that Mr.. BiddIe had notified
| at the house. that he would not be responsible
for valses and knapsacks lett behind the bar,
If entrusted to him to be locked in a room up
stairs for the purpose, then he would be RESPONSE
| BILE. On trial.