The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-11-09
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-Judge Peirce-
The ordinary Saturday business before the Court.
@ the eusdd w o. es c sSe I R the
the Court that on last Saturday night, week ago,
her husband, the respondent. went to his home
the room where she was sleeping with her child, an
infant, only eleven months old he caroused all night,
and the next morning beat her brutally, and drove
her away. He kept the child, and when she.went back
The respondent, a car driver acknowledged that
the night in question he went home drunk; out he
averred that his wife was herself ami habual drunk
him to live peacea6y and had always negec ted the
child even more than even brues neglect their
child and that his wife had never demanded its Gus.
tody and fatty denied the allegations of violence on
The Commonwealth ex rel. Charles sydney vs. the
charge: OF the relator from the charge Of malicious
mischief Some time since the school Board con;
house at Seventeenth and Wood streets This c1n-
terer. The contract between the school Board and
the builder gave to the architect the right TO alter or
Improperly done. The work went on, and the archi-
re reSI was i a %i not such as the conrac RE ne
qared and he 6erefore ordered bis Charles sgd
and hence the prosecution by the Dlasterer.
the Part 81 the % & & Sss
city, but still in the hands of the Contractors
city may taken C.
the premises aaG a %& n oI tne WORK
The Telator answered that this was done by the au
OF the city by the order of the city upon the pro
perty of the city, 1t just the city Itself
certain property belonging TO 1t, even destroying
should not be held criminaly answerable the
The Court sustained this latter doctrine and dis
charged the relatOr.
In the case OF the Commonwealth ex rel Michael
Kelly vs. Commodore Selfridge. In this much agi.
tated case the respondent made return TO the writ
born in S4s that he enlisted in the navy At Norfolk
August r. 1864, then being between the OF fifteen
and si1teeni In May 1863 he had deserted, and the
llth of september last he voluntarily presented him
self at the office of the commandant at the Navy
yard ior the purpose OF snrrendering himself
CA paper was oneTed IN evidence dated August ~
puTported TO be the written consent OF the boy g
RUal dian to tue enlistment But IL was not proven
shown that the boys own father was al that time
alive, ana II was said that this man Huxley was
really the recruiting ocer who made out the enlist
mel the Court of course, rejected this paper.
Mr. Valentine on The part OF the respondent tn en-
cited the first section OF the act of Congress OF
O. 1887, Brightly, 659 26 stat 28 relative to the
lawful TO enlist into the navy mioors between the
ages OF thirteen and eighteen years, with the
of eighteen years without the consent pare Is an
guardians; and also the act of Congress OF June 1888
relative to the enlistment OF minors into the Marine
The case of the Commonwealth ex rel Charles
Gormley was taken up in connection with the pre-
cedIng. II shown by the boys parents that he
enlisted without the consent of his parents both OF
whom were living at the time On the part OF the
respondent II shown that, the 18th of Septem-
Der last the boy voluntarily surrendered himself at
the Navy Yard, having deserted at Norfolk station.
In regard TO this surrender himself into the custody
of the Uuited States officials, which mentioned
a confirmation Of the original enlistment. counsel
for the relatOr took the ground that the first enlist
ment was Illegal, the boy being minor, and not
could be confirmation of contract void 90 gitO.
The cases were yet under argument