The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-02-18
LEGAL 1NTRLLIGENCE.


the Court, retired 70 consider and pass upon
such matters as may be brought before it: The
Petit Jury was called and discharged till to-
morrow morning, to which time the Court ad-
Supreme Court-Chief Justice Woodward,
and Judges Thompson, Strong and Read
Opinions on the following cases were de-
Dun & Duff vs. Fitzwater. Error to Common
Pleas, Philadelphia. Judgment affirmed.
Opinion by Woodward, G.
Adiorne's Appeal. Error to Common Pleas,
Chester county. Decree affirmed.
Field VS.. harris ct al. Directors Girard Col
lege. Decree aftirmed with costs, to be paid by
plalntff. Opinion by Strong, j.
Evans Appeal from Registers Court, Phila-
delphia. Judgment reversed Opinion by
Bradbury VS.. wagenhart. Judgment re.
versed Opinion by Thompson, j.
Cowton VS.. Wicixersham Error to District
Court of Philadelphia. Judgement affirmed,
THE CASE OF JUDGE STROUD.
In the matter of the return made by the Hon.
George NJ. stroud oneof the Judges OF the Dis
trct Court of Philadelphia, to the writ issued
out ofthis Court at the suit of Thornton Conrow,
issue be tween Schloss & Brother, plaintiffs,
| against him, the said Thornton Conrow, de.
| fendant before the said Judge Stroud, certain
| bills ofexception were taken and allowed which
| the said Judge afterwards refused to sign and
| seal per curiam.
The writ awarded in the above case, after re-
| citing the material facts alleged under oath by
| the petitioner commanded Judge stroud II so
| 6be, that he should on day certain atfiX his
! seal TO the exceptions alleged by the petitioner,
according to the form of the statute.
Il This was the whole eXigency of the writ. 1t
was framed upon the Statute of West ID, which
! was the statute referred to, and neither the
! statute nor the writ required more of the Judge
! than that he confess and seal the exceptions. or
| deny them. If he confessed and sealed them
! they became part of the record, and the party
! would have his writ Of error to receive them,
! with the record into this Court for review II
! he denied them, the petitioner would have his
| action at law for a false return.
The Judge was not called on to show cause
| why he should not seal the exceptions, and we
had nothing to do in this proceeding with the
quality of the exceptions, and hence the Yolu-
| mnous argument introduced into the return to
prove that the petitioner was not entitled to the
| exceptions was utterly irrelevant. When the
record comes up upon writ OF error will be the
| time for us to consider whether the exceptions
were duly taken under the rules of the District
Court and whether they are sufficient in law,
| ana we are not to be preciptated into prema-
ture consideration of these points. the statute
which gives the writ imposes no such duty upon
on the ground that the return was argumen-
| tative and uncertain, we allowed exceptions to
be filed to IL, and these brought out the fact
qualifications of the return, it did, in reality,
amount to a confession of the exceptions, and
| the Judge accompanied 1T with an explicit and
repeated oral declaration in the presence of this
Court, of his Willingness to seal the bill if we
should be of opinion that he ought to do SO.
Seeing that it is now admitted on all hands
that the return confesses the bills as alleged,
we of course think the Judge ought TO sign
them. And in saying so, we found ourselves
entirely on the confession, and not upon that
nature or legal effect of the bills. When We
issued the writ we said this would be his duty in
the event of confession, and that we stated the
III
The whole law of the writ was condensed
into few words in the case OF Bridgman VS..
Hail Showers Parl. Cases, lID, where, after
giving the substance of the writ in Latin, it is
duly rendered, then this writ; and If it be re-
turned Q1tod non td est, then an action for false
return, and thereupon the surmise Will be
such recovery, a peremptory writ command
The writ we issued was preliminary and alter
native. The return is qlLod ito est. Judge
stroud's offer to seal the bills may, therefore,
! be accepted as the legitimate part of the writ,
and as Obviating the necessity for any further
| process,
Let the bills be sealed, and further proceed
District COurt-Judge stroud.-Bartolet &
Barrett VS.. Robert }. Walker, Administrator t.
cover for board medical attendance, and fune-
raj expenses. Mrs. Wiley died at a boarding
house on Broad street. and the expenses OF her
illness and funeral were alleged to have been
betrayed by plaintifts. On trial
PeIee hodn[oo6 * VS. ~ haWoO6 He gar
cution for money in the hands of garnishee.
Verdict for plaintiff, 1888 OS.
District COurt-Judge Hare.-Charles p.
Hollcomt VS.. Joseph Il. Reside. Verdict by
agreement for plaintiff, $l792'34.
Ellen Mellon VS.. Michael Lannigan. An
action to recover for services rendered in the
capacity of nurse, On trial.
Court of Common Pleas-Presiding Judge
Allison, and Judges Brewster and Peirce-In
this Court the equity argument list is up.
Court OF Quarter rSesslOns-Judge Ludlow.
Prison cases are still before the Court.
John Donnelly was convicted of a charge of
the larceny of scrap iron, belonging to the
Reading Railroad Company He and two
others were detected by an employe of the
Company throwing iron out OF the car. When
they saw this employe coming they ran away,
but afterwards Donnelly came back to finish
the work unceremoniously interrupted, and
this time was caught.
John Henderson was convicted of charge Of
attempting to commit O. burglary On last
Thursdaysmorning about 2 o'clock, he was seen
by an officer at Fifth and Thompson streets,
trying to open the door OF a dwelling.house.
The officer arrested him, and found upon him
huge pistol, loaded and capped, and COM
plete set Of burglars tools. The same officer
that same night detected him in the act Of un-
locking cellar door. Henderson was con-
victed on a charge of carrying concealed deadly
weapons also.
FREAK OF A LUNATIC.
Bridget Brady was charged with assault and
| battery upon Mary Burke. The evidence lor
the Commonwealth was that defendant and
Mrs. Burke were in room togeCnei' ,nS,r9 Wnere
noise. Upon reaching the room these persons
found the defendant beating Mrs. Burke on the
head with piece OF head-Doaru' ,. -
The defense alleged that the DEFENDANT was
and is insane, and offered the testimony OF
several physcians to that effect. The jury
rendered a verdict OF not guilty upon grounds
VI n seemS that Mrs. Brady had been for some
time iaboring under mental lderangement,.and
Mr. BRADY had confined her in room, and EN-
nloved Mrs Burke a nurse for her. On the
6aGofthe alleged assault and battery Mrs. Brady
wanted 10 pour water into barrel of flour, and
being prevented from doing SO by Mrs. Burke,
she became exasperated, ana commenced a
fearful attack on that LADY.
II w OIlein plead guilty to charge of OBJ
tanning goods under false pretenses. He went
himself as one OF the firm Of Holsman & Bro
thars No l47 Water street, obtained a valuable
lot OF goods from them, consisting OF woollen