The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-03-05
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

SUPREME COURT OF PBNNsYLvANIA-Chi JUS |
tice Woodward end justices Strong, Read, and |
Agnew.-lnthe following cases opinon were de-
By Wood ward, O. john b. Houser ami
Daniel Bersef VS.. the Commonwealth Of Pennsyl
Cs Tsnis. Error to Court Of over & and Ierminer OF
Wtldey ct al vs.. Gallagher. Error to District
Court ol Philadelphia. Judgment affirmed.
Kuhn VS.. Boyd. Error to District Court Of
Philadelphia. Judgment affirmed.
The City OF Philadelphia vs.. Christian Weller
Error to District Court OF Philadelphia. Judg'
ment affirmed
Error to District Court of Philadelphia. Judg-
ment affirmed.
Allen vs. Conrad. Error to District Court of
philadelphia. Judgment affirmed.
BY Read, J.-Philadelphia and Baltimore Cen
tral Railroad Company We. Brscoe. Error to
District Court of Philadelphia. Judgment re-
versed.
Provldent Savings and Building Association VS..
Daily. Error to District Court OF Phila lelphia.
Judgment affirmed.
By Agnew, J.-Flanigan VS.. The City of Phila.
delphia. Error to District Court OF Philadelphia.
Judgment affirmed.
Martin VS.. Holt Certificate from Nlsi Prius.
Judgment affirmed.
The Supplemental Philadelphia List was then
taken up and the following case argued:-
Pearson s. Pearson and Jesse White, Jr., CO.
partners under the firm OF p s. Peterson & Co.,
VS.. The Union National Bank of Philadelphia.
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. The
count with defendants, which in the space of
about two months amounted to S656 S43O5. OF
this large sum the plaintiffs claim balance due
to them on August 4, 1866, of SAL ,535'3l.
This balance appears by the entries made by
de fendans' teller on the bank book of plaintiffs
| The defense is that on a certain deposit made
July 81, 1866, amounting to $32, 200, there was in
| cuded check drawn by the firm of Stamford &
| Houston upon the defendants for $9003, which,
| although received by the defendants cash
passed to plaintiffs credit and charged against
Nrr1 kla 1afa A.VnN5 nInap 30
| deduct, upon the allegation that the defendants
| had not at the time sufficient OF the drawers /
| funds to pay the same. This check ot5Stamford
| & Houston was given to plaintiffs in payment of
| loan and the interest thereon, and was de
posted on that day by them-where it was
| credited as cash in the book Of plaintiffs of
| the bank. This, plaintiff claim was a payment
which they had no right afterwards to revoke.
The bank alleges that there was not sufficient
| funds to Stamford & Houston's credit to paw the
| check, and that at the time the firm was insol-
that plaintiffs knew of this fact when they took
| and deposited the check. The jury in the court
below found for the plaintiffs in the sum OF
Sl2,767'39, the admitted balance with interest,
| they deducting the amount OF the check for
S90O3 from the amount claimed by plaintiffs.
| This writ Of error was taken to the judgment
| entered on that verdict.
DISTRICT COURT IN BANo-President Judge
| Sharswood, and Judges Stroud and Hare.-The
| March Term Of the Court commenced this morn
| ing, and the current and deferred Motion Isis
| were under consideration.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-President Judge
| ALISON and Judge Pierce.-The March Term
| of this court also commenced this morning.
| The new trial Motion List was before the court.
THE STAKE ON A PRIZE FIGHT-cHARGR OF CON-
| sPIRACY.
CoURT OF QUARTER SEssIoNs-Judge Ludlow.
Joseph G. Fowler and Edward Hastings were
| charged with conspiracy to cheat and defraud
| Henry C.Gineklnger out of one thousand dollars.
1t appears that prize fight was arranged some
ftTnn Iocf onrtr IN fob NJ hats nnn IIaof
| ings. one of the defendants in this case, and a
man named Butler. The prosecutor, Gmgkinger,
was the backer of Butler, and deposited
with Fowler the other defendant, as
| which, the match being for $1,000 a side, was the
amount staked that Butler would win the fight
After a regular course of training, the fight was
fixed TO come Off at Potts farm, about on the
line between Pennsylvania and Delaware, some
time in June last. The parties and their friends
were on the spot at the appointed time, but the
authorities having received information OF the
affair, the police likewise were on hand, and q
number of those attending were arrested, aud
the fight broken up.
those arrested, and IL was Immediately arranged
by the managers of the affair that the fighting
should come off the same day, between and
o'clock, at Belmont Cottage, near Philadelphia.
| Hastings and his friends were there, but Butler
was not SO fortunate, for in the meanwhile the
police, who had been in his pursuit, succeeded
IN arresting him. 1t was therefore declared that
| butier, IN not appearing, nau lorelJeu tnP
| stakes, and that they belonged of right to Has
| tings.
This decision was subsequently carried out,
and the money paid as alleged, to him. The
prosecutor alleges that the whole thing was a
fraud from beginning to end, and was gotten up
by the two defendants for the sole purpose OF
cheating and defrauding him out of his money;
that it was never intended the fight should come
off; and that to prevent it,, they had given infor
nation to the police 20 that Butler might be
arrested and Hastings thus be enabled to obtain
the money by a fraudulent project. The case is
still on trial
| TT NJ A MON ANTI ~NNENETTO ST7