The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-02-20
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

District COurt-Judge Stroud.-Glassy VS.
Hestonville and Fairmount Passenger Railway
Company. An action to recover damages for
injury received by child of plaintiff in being
run over by one of the cars of the defendants.
John O'Brien VS.. John O'Byrne. An action
on a book account. Verdict for plaintih, SlOS'50.
John Gallagher VS.. City of Philadelphia. An
action to recover for work and labor done upon
public school house in the Second Ward. Ver-
dict for plantif, Sl2544.
The National Bank kofGermantownv VS.. Charles
5. Johnson. An action to recover for a balance
overdrawn by defendant. Verdict for plaintiff,
Samuel Lafeter vs. Frankford and Southwark
City Passenger Railway Company. An action
to recover damages for injuries sustained by
plaintiff, in being thrown from his wagon and
crippled by being run into by the cars of de-
District COurt-Judge Hare.-Marttn vs.
Hurst: Before reported. Verdict for plain
tiff, S675.
Isaac ID. Lochman VS.. Van Court, appellant
An action to recover for money borrowed Ner-
dict for plaintiff, S2l09'20,
Orphans COurt-Judges Pierce and Brews-
ter-Ihe Orphans Court argument list is before
this Court
States Attorney.-The United states VS. Frede-
rick Sweeney; The defendant in this case was
charged with keeping distlllery, and carrying
on the distilling business without license and
bond.
on the 26th of December last, M. III. Brooks and
William Kneass went into a basement in South
Tenth street, and there discovered mash, bar
rels, and other apparatus for distilling liquor;
that the defendant was in the place, and him
self said, 1--WE are fixing up for something OF
the kind" when reference was made of the dis
tilltng of whisky; and also that he had no bond
or license.
The defense attacked the credibility of the
United States Witnesses especially of fKneass,
who, upon his first examination, did not say
that the defendant had said he was preparing
for anything. and did SO testify until called to
the stand the second time, when his memory
had been refreshed as he said. II was also
argued that the United States had not proved
that defendant owned this basement this
apparatus, as several families were living IN
the house, nor that anybody actually was or
had been engaged in disttlling liquor. ON trial.
j. T.. O'Neil for defendant.
Supreme COurt-Chtef Justice Woodward,
aud Judges Thompson and Strong. The follow
ing case was argued:-Baumgardner VS.. The
Improvement Company.
Prison cases are still before the Court. After
the excitement and confusion consequent upon
the shooting of the prisoner George Eller, Dy
Thns, Leis, in open Court before the eyes or the
Judue and Jury, had been quieted down and
! order had been restored which Judge Ludlow,
in his determined way, very soon succeeded In
dong the regular business Of the Court was
] cesnmeheed. s-..s.. .t.s.,s lei,
| keepjng n ferocious dog, was then called, The
! defendant resides in the nelghDorhooQ OF FIJI
| teenth and Monroe sts., and mas been Keeping
| dogs for some time, which have been biting
| ana annoying the people of that vicinity. The
| defense set up was that the prosecution was not
! brought for the purpose of ridding the neigh
boThood of the alleged nuisance, but with the
! Intention of gratifying spite and malice agains
| Ryannon who had q lawsuit ageinst the prose
| cusors. and also that the dog is a poodle" ant
| not one OF the biting kind. On trial.