The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-07-22
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

DISTRICT CoURT-Judge sharswood.-August
gTsS TTSSee versus 81 T6e 81 Ee I'M
Agent-This was an action on policy OF insurance
against IRE upon house and barn In Bucks county
and the loss on II adjusted and paid This action was
before the jury to Justify the deS OF ANU sndulent
overvelnation, or any completely by plaintiff in the
diary In that IespecI the verdict Of the jury was
com piianoe with the conditions Of the posy"FrSty.
IN not giving written notce secondly In not furnish
Whether there had been waiver by the defendants
TO the jury reserving the question whether there
Which bore upon this point showed that upon recev.
Ing SsEHs M GS.b nSS9e to G% tS 6e SG ns
investigation of the circumstance, examined
Sa4es whS the hSd
rails. This agent was himself examined on the part
party interested that he must send his proofs 70 the
10 bs Sesn ws a S
German-what he meant, and referred him to the
BY others, and the jury may have dlscredited him,
Sey @ are By the
plRintin with the case Of the appointment
nvestgation By him. and upon The aatSortiss we are
compelled to say that this does not TO waiver
pany, @ 1885 it held that where the bylaws OF
notice Of loss to be given 70 the Company that notice
eleven days after the re occurred was too a,e and
wards made examinaons respecting the loss was not
VS.. Updegraa, Wright Sis' tie circumstances that
the President Of the Company had made an examina-
any evidence Of waiver IL is true that there were
other cl5cpmstances ms which went to negsye N the
the question had been submitted to the jury had
the defendants had put their refusal upon their
groundsthe grounds which were taken at the trial
Il might have been different, but there was no evil
dence to that effect The Company have . arght, to
form an important part or the contrnct, and
diions precedent TO any right or action 6y tne IN IN
cIrcumstances Of the loss for the very purpose OF
1 whether her Is SSSe an & 9ey Pss9s
had been perfectly satisfied the jury were, OF the
RSVs Insisted s' on h n The
stance but that m is matter which Is entire entirely within
Plaintiff has S oy ms n & ns5 Sr b bu t
bound to that justice ia administered Ac-
Rule discharged and Judgment for defendant on the
eoURToF QUARTER SESSIONS Judge PeIrce.--
was charged with assault and battery upon Rosanna
he & Sy 10 dsS %or sne
and while she there she saw the defendant riding
rum oSes Ss % nat playing
and he turned his head and chased her a gentle
iendant An assault being an attemps TO commit ,ni
commission Of Violence the jury rendered verdict
Edwsfd Mcsfinger was charged with assault and
battery upon Anna Wolman. Mrs. WOlman testified
6orhood OF Ninth and Poplar streets she the de.
tendant and some other boys coming towards her;
she feared harm at the time and started on but as
soon as the boys came up to her they threw lime In
defendant throw the lme but saw him with the other
boys. .
defendant had nothing to do whatever with this out
rage he not being there at the time. and that what
other boys threw at the lady was heur, not lime. Yer
dict not guilty. 80
diseased flesh, knowing the same to be diseased and
unwholesome. The bill was submitted without evil
deDce The District Attorney said to the Jury that IL
diseased hee be eaten; but that In this the
evidence could not make out within the mean
ing OF the statute since the hogs the flesh question,
were so alive and the law was only in reference TO
the flesh OF animals dead.
John Schickle was charged with assault and battery
upon Louis Bran. The evidence as that the defend
ant and prosecutor engaged In quarrel about the
right each had TO a swing at beer-garden, and
defendant endeRvored strike the prosecutor after
being struck himself, but was prevented by the by
ISLANDERS. Verdict not guilty.
John and Bridget Gavin were charged with assault
and battery upon John 3. Mcbride and Policeman
Samuel Tucker.
Mcbride testified that he went to the house in the
the arrest Of father OF the defendants
he enteIe the house, Mr.. Glavin, for whom he had
the warrant stalrs he started after him, aud
the defendants, the son and daughter. seized him,
Samuel Tucker. a policeman testified that ne went
there TO assist Mcbride and was also attacked by the
The defense alleged that a most brutal attack was
Tucker striking the girl on the head with billy,
and also breaking one of her ribs with the same
weapon The policeman declined to answer. upon the
ground of DIFFERENTIATION when asked II these things
were true The father Of the defendants was their
only witness; and upon his testimony alone without
argument by COUNSEL the jury rendered verdict OF