The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-01-14
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.
THE MosoNeAL1A OIL oAsE.


Court Of Quarter SeBsiOns-Judge Peirce.--
IL will be remembered that this case, after pending
for many months and terms, during which time tt
underwent many arguments was at length called
fOr trial upon last Thursday. The length Of tue
case being anticipated, preparation made by
discharging until this morning all other parties than
those concerned IN this case.
The trial was opened on Thursday, when we gave
in full all the particulars that had at the time
gwen. On Friday the trial was not resumed, on
account OF the Park case in the Common Pleas.
where his Honor Judge Pierce was sitting, nor on
SATURDAY., in consequence OF one OF the jurors having
been injured by IA on the ice The charge is false
pretenses and conspiracy
This morning the Commonwealth, whose oase
had not been closed on thursday, took up the ex-
amina atlon OF witnesses. Mr.. Orr one of tne geR-
tlemeA who subscribed upon the strength OF the
presentations of the West Virginia land being very
rich III oil and only 6pOO0 stated that he took
vensOn called upon tim in reference to the com.
plants made by the subscribers and said that there
was cause OF complaint, and wished to know
what were the demands they made.
The witness answered that his demand was TO
be put on equality in the matter with Stevenson
himself and thought if he could receive back 300
of bis money that would be done. Then that Mr..
eouls be obtained. the compainan woud be saCis-
fed that nothing was wrong and he proposed to
settle with him, nay, to give nim $1,000 if ne would
get such an opinion and show il about among the
subscribers But this Mr.. Orr decliued to do.
Mr.. Orr ana Mr. Middleton Afterwards began q
civil suit against Stevenson and others, and then
Walker paid him $500, and receipt OF an assess
men. OF $50; ana then Stevenson saId that he and
Middleton were on more than an equahty with him-
prosecutor in this case on trial.
| On cross-examinaion this gentleman said he did
not enter complaint against these defendants Ste
| venson, Walker, EarsOn, and Davis, nor did any
DO with his authority or consent; that at the
time of the beginning of the civil proceedings Mr..
| Stevenson came to him and Middleton, and that
| the first demand was for $210O-$700 for himself
agreed upon a smaller sum, and settled upon It.
The witness himself visited the oil territory. and
| reported 1t as good land, in his opinion.
He went 10 the land on the 26th of June, and
made this report in the early part Of July, 1886.
| stated that he Knew the defendants Stevenson.
| Walker, and the Others and that, IN consequence
OF a conversation held with another gentle man, he
went to Mr. Stevenson for the second time in Feb
ruary, 1866, and bIoached the subject of the OIL
| lands.
Mr.. Stevenson told him of the lands, describing
the Vicinity and rOundinRs, telling him of the
abandonment of salt wells, hitherto very lucrative,
account of the discovery of oil. Also, that the
originators were abour to get up the subscription
$60000 and that he himself intended to take several
shares.
The offer of showing BY the witness that money
was obtained from others than those mentioned IA
the bill being objected to by the defense the Judge
said that if he had laid down the law in the first in
stance in such cases of alse pretenses evidence OF
detrauding any parties whatever should be adms-
sible as being connected with the transac-
tion, it would go far to show the intent of the
defendants; and hat, although the authorities
very strict and emphatic on that point his faith in
that doctrine was not much shaken, but according
to the law such evidence was excluded
This witness then went on to detail his subscrip-
ton dissatisfaction, and complaint, as the preceding
witness. The case is vet on trlal:
Messrs. L. Q. Cassidy, Charles w, Brooke and " !.
| ii. Ruddiman for the defense.
On account of this case the homicide case, in-
tended to have been taken up to-day, was postponed
until Thursday next.
Court of Common Pleas-Judge Ludlow,
Frank Koner VS.. Thomas Caferty. An action TO re-
cover TOR the sale OF horses. Verdict for plain
tid. S25.
Henry John vs.. Charles Feisner. An action. to
recover for money borrowed. Verdict for plaintiff,
Sl04.
Coates VS.. Smith. An action to recover for pro-
lessiOnal services. On trial.