The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-10-02
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-Judge Cad
cigars and other goods Frederick stS6 q Bros Of
Reading, claimants, WHICH was tried in this Court
ported the jury AZ the time rendered verdict for the
EXecntioa was levied against the property Of the
claimants. and about $500 recovered. The
returna6ie on the 9Th OF ooto6eF sridSy next This
morning the suretts appeared IN Court. and asked
until future time. But after hearing full arg
DISTRICT COURT : Judge Stroud West VS..
Plowman, before reported Verdict for plain i'll,
James Allen vs. David MoLarln. An action to re.
cover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution.
Tne facts Of the case were these:In 1884 the plainth
was carrying on ar-boillng establishment for the
gong pretty con'tantly night and day, shed just
In the rear Of the defendants house the defendant
muncated to his house the inmates OF his house also
offensive odor that arose from the tar aud he com
plalned 70 the plaintiff of 1t as nuisance. aud re-
Blackburn at the instance of the defendant went to
that there was cause for the defendant 10 eSr that his
property was not safe SO long as this tar boiling
and signed by the neighbors and presented to the
The matter went from the Mayor to Alderman
Better ana the latter AFTER hearing testimony bound
ianing nuisance. A bill in the case was sent up to
the Grand Jury, and there the matter ended. The
evidence before the Alderman did justify bind
case was carried on through motives Of revense
But the defense proved that the prosecution was
this nuisance, and was entirely devoid of malice.
Verdict for defendant.
Osborn Conrad to use vs. Lewis R. Broomall. An
action on three promissOry notes, the amount
claimed being about $4,000. The defense alleged pay
ment by execution on previous notes which have not
DeSI DepSIIsTRICT CoURT-Judge sharswood Ward q
for board 1t alleged that the defendant Sep
tember, 1862, contracted with the plaintiffs then pro
tamv for one year, at $1,000; and alter remaining a
short time went away. long before MS year had ex
nired refusing to fHlhl his contract by occupying the
looms for the of the term, and refusing pay
ali the contract money This action was brought TO
recover the whole sum agreed TO be paid for the
be defense denied having contracted to stay at
lime hut alleged that he went there as ordinary
boarder with his family Intending to remain as long
oered in court the amount due up 10 the time Of his
departure but protested he was responsible for
NsIHsiI'P NsNIHsiI sIUs"Judgs Read Smith VS. Huston The
rule to show cause .Why an attachment should not
C0URT OF COMMON PLEAS.-Judges Ludlow
and Brewster.-The mlscel aneOus argument list was
COURT OF QUARTER sEssIoNs-Judge PelEce
Lewis StaIbay ~s s bonebr % ., ~ W
Eo s2S NJ Second street, piece Of carpet and ave
In Rank of Nort6eTn n6sres ier the
due him. and this check was given hlm On she same
day the deepuen % YSeu h AZ I; AZ zen s took the
sented at the Bank OF Northern Liber tes a forged
cheek oT @ @ryn eE 20 Of the sn Sap 9ed m by aS M
covered the forgery and caused Br otherton to be
iio6n Ebert was charged with assault and battery
upon his wife Ths parties hSa separated, and the
ssed that the defendant calico non his wife at his
tavern and treated her very aectiona She pro
posed TO GO 70 nsiERop. ing house 70 get some re
lowed, attacked ana 'OeRt her in most brutal man
The defense arY ued that the witnesses for the Com
monWealth We, not entitled to belief and therefore
! the defepoRp's should be acquitted Jury out