The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-06-14
LEGAL INTELLIGHNCE


e,DlstFfce Court tm Bamc-President Jud~a
as SnassI,SsWood, Judges Stroud and Hare The Conrt
tbiSd morning engaged with the Argument list on
TOurt of Common PIems-President Judso
betnre tS 1 rSuoge Ludlow.-The Certiorar list was
humber vVoro Ia 5s morning As usual, the largest
supreme Court at Ntsf Prfus will be
held ON Saturday morning ~ w
court OF Quarter sessiOns-Judge PIERCE
James Jefreys pleaded guilty to a charge of obtain.
ing money unGer false pretenses. He renresentcd
ntnselt to be connected with the shier Hose Com
pany' 9nd collected money in the name of the com.
pannS, 3ut always kept the money.
itiies IithaIies kimmer and Elizabeth Kimmer were nc.
g9tleu ol charge OF the larceny of w. valued at
40; ana calf valued at 500, the property of WIN
~ Leauer @ Mr. Leader was IN the habit of keeping
as ne testified he supposed his gate had bean Ief
I al anu tne COW and calf had wandered to the
the COW and cali found tied in the ward of de-
iendants. lie demanded them, but defendants re-
dnors r gWe tnen up until they had been paid five
warrant and obtained his property. lie said he had
they intended to steal the COW and calf
henry Leader was ACC Hitted Of charge of assault
ana battery upon George KImmer. 1t grew out OF
the COW case. "
Emma Anderson ard Albert Thompson, colored.
were charged VITA keeping vory disorderly house
IN barciay street near Sixth. Witnesses testified
that they were contiI uay annoyed by the noise OF
drunken men and women at all hours of the night
One witness said that the defendants were in the
habit OF carrying on wholesale robbery; thai Emma
would entice men into the house. while A bert
would rob them, and Kick them down stairs nina,
in the meanwhile amusing herself bv throwing
bottles at them The jury of course, rendered YER
DICT OF guilty.
William Robinson, colored was ACQUITTED of a
charge OF the larceny as baiee of So the property
Of Litleton Maurice, cOlored. Maurice gave Robin
son some Seh to sell and Robinson kept the money
1t was such old affair that Maurice did not wish
to have Robinson convicted. The bill was therefore
submitted TO the jury without any evidence.
James Washington and Kinsey Welsh colored,
were convicted of charge of the larceny of q
push.cart, valued at $50 the property OF John Cole.
William Cowley was acquitted OF a charge of as
sault and battery upon Susan Pottinger. Prosocu-
Tux cid notapFea ear and the bill was subm tied with
Joseph Baker was convicted of charge o assault
and battery upon james Mckinney. Baker asked
mckinney to show him the way to ladys house.
ana Mckinney did so; arrived there, Mckinney
asked If he lady was at home, and received mega
tive answer. He tod Baker that the lady was not
at home. Baker then commenced to beat him un-
morClfullv
James Furgerson was acquitted of a charge of the
larceny OF watch, valued at $40 co. the property of
James Spinach. SpinnacA testified that while he
was at ball at the SAMSON Street Hall, some one
struck him, and FuIPerson grabbed his watch, and
handed it 10 a named o. Hara. But thore was
no positive evidence.
John Burns and Gilbert Connor were each con-
victeo on crossbill of assault and battery Burns
was kicked out of q house by ConnOr, and when on
the street. Burns kicked Connor into the street
Sentenced to pay costs OF prosecution
Hannah Scurry and Daniel Dunn were acquitted
OF charge of assault and battery upon Francis
VIII lam Mcdonald was chargen with perjury in
swearing before Alderman w hite that his house had
$1,000 had been taken away. and that he had reason
to suspect that The goods were placed in n certain
house. No 1886 South sixth street, thus obtaining
search warrant with which he searched the house !;
wheI eas he had in truth lost no goods by theft.
The goods were found in the house, but witnessed
testified that they had been placed there BY Defend
ant himself; that defendant about to move, and
obtained permission from the occupant of the
house 10 pace these things there temporarily !;
that defendant often came to visit the house, and
look after the goods; that he even took tea with
him on the very day that the search-warrant was
served.
But 1T was alleged by the defense that some of
these goods placed there during the absence of
defendant; that they taken there without the
knowledge of defendant, and that 1t was for these
goods that he made search. Still on trial.