The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-09-28
COURT or oUARTER sEssIoNs-Iudge PeIrce.-

COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS-Judge PeIrce.-
The ordinary Saturday business before the Court
sheriff. This was hearing a writ Of habeas cor
ppS sued out tor the & discharge Of the Telator from
is tenant of the respondent under lease that I've
Whch are located in RchmonS to ssry oa
Ing business. When he took possession he made such
for There were two bulk windows attached to 1t. and
out thority of the landlord the respondent At
the close Of the evidence counsel for the relator
made out to support the charge The reiator Was was
Sn 0 a as we as PaTt GI as
he had in the Others
out case larceny and that charge course, could
not tor moment be sustained But the point TO be
not SUCH prma facie case OF malicious mischief as
would oemaD0 holding OF the reator to answer that
Counsel for the rela.or said hi. client had been
moned to apl in this Court to charge OF
larceny only and not any charge that might be made
did not think himself called upon to answer an sccu-
salion of malicious mischief
lator with murder, the Court might discharge hmm
from that charge and hold hin to be Ied oT man
and also IN charge OF burglary relator might os
guilty knowledge, and then inquired If the Court
might not hold man charged with larceny to answer
failed to sustain the former charge and did support
Counsel for defense replied that undoubtedly the
Court could exercise this authority where the oenses
distinctly and plainly different. man charged with
murder could not upon an e6sminaton OF IN tds KIND, @
charged with forgery: could not be held to answer
charge of forcible entry and detainer more could
charge of malicious mischief -
After hearing counsel on the other side the Judge,
decided that this affair II anything against the law
in the civil court 10 recover damages for breach of
the in the lease 70 return the premises IN as
and was neither larceny malicious mischief and
therefore he dscharged the TelatoE 49, o,..,r
witt OF habeas corpus sued out for the discharge OF the
relator from charge of false pretenses. The evidence
was that the relator sold the respondent a horse
whose eyes were unsound.
known both parties However, the relator thought
he would get we'll and gave guarantee odthe horses %
ease was pronouced incuraee Then zen tnis % pIosee1, pros
legal cass OF false pretenses The relator acknow-
legged the defects of the horse ana the respondent
purchased knowing them, aud his only remedy was
upon the guarantee In civil court The reator was
u The JommonweaIth ex rel. Adelaide and John
Lewis Climber Mrs. Mary CLIMBER A VIII OF
toSy Of tw6 Children. The evidence went to prove
that Mr.. Climber and Mrs. Ginber had lived together
maiaPbR WITH he mother Ryidence was taken as
the fitness OF the reator to have the custody OF the
The Judge said that the evidence against Mrs Gin
ana he evidence for her proved COED Character
one of the children was under seven years Of age,
law the right Of the mother 20 have her children was
eight years old but very delicate health and upon
these grounds, an considering that the father had
for them after an order had been made against
him for their support he remanded them back to
NfsT PRIUs-Judge Read Smith VS. Huston An
application ior an hs'achenS @ BeIore reported Rule
why the defendants should not be committed for con
stranberger vg. 0amwd. Judgment for want OF
sutncent 9inaavlt OF defense SS3si2
Ball Va Barry. Rule to quash eapfds, Rule made
Duncan and Hatcher VS. Ford, garnishee Of Dun.
hands Of garnishee, TO via, $40. -