The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-03-09
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.


COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS-JudgeL L idlOw
-FIabeas corpus cases and miscellaneous business
Sommonwealth VS.. Ashton. Motion to quash.
Argued last saturday upon the g QUAD Of the iqior.
without preliminary hgIarRg and without The the
low gave the decision of the Court this morning. say
ing upon the question OF preliminary hearings the law
enforce it, The rule was made absolute.
Commonwealth ex rel George Rogers vs.. The
who was bound over to answer charge OF false pre-,
a house for sale, and told a Mr. Mcbride, who called
upon him in reference to the matter that the title
Mcbride to take the house This was alleged to have
peer %peeh enfS preyns o these transactons MT
Kelley had purchased the premises and that TINS iact
was known to Mr.. Rogers. Remanded for trial.
In the following case an application was made by
the reator for the custody of his wife and child Who
he alleges in the custody of the respondent his
father-inaw. The following return to the writ was
Commonweaith ex rel. NJ. c. Rowland VS.. Charles
Cambos-To the Honorable the Judges Of the Court
dephia-C Charles Camblos the defendant in the within
that the said r. G. Rowland and the said Bessie Row
land therein named are not now nor were nor ls or
writ in the custody possession Of nor confined
restrained of their her liberty by the said charles
Cambos therefore he cannot have the body of the
said +. c. Rowland of the said Bessie Rowland,
before your Honors MS by the within writ ne Is COM
And for greater certainty part ofthis return,
that the said reator married the respondents daugh
resided at Respondents house and been supported by
him The reator also lived there till 1862, when he
ing occasional visits remained until June snt IS2 70
After his return from washington ne wenT bouse 10
in July, where he remained till November; -
tce of his profession respondent furnished him
with pecunary assistance to maintain MN, nm Whie ne
formed and he believes he was not successful in this.
but he nneas epe 9set ON Visits During
all this time from the day Of his marriage the FeiatoT
home of his own to which TO invite his wife, who has
has not at any time exercised any control, coer-
cion, peruasion over her, and she has
Teator desires do so: and restraint Of
a a h has o h and e
home, there are reasons which would render 1t Inn
susceptible of proof if your Honors should deem
operated upon the mind of his daughter your respon-
dent unable to say the subject has never been
home, and your respondent has provided It.
The child Bessa; mentioned in the reators petition
OF her mother in the custody, power and possession
And vonr respondent further says, that her mother
has spoken his daughter in reference to this APP
eore eRa "t this snf and
thereto if your HOnOrS shall M f2 SEfGs RfEs oAMBLos
HoRATIo N. WALKER, for Relator.
Upon this the Court told the lady, Mrs. Row
land that as the respondent denied having her
in his custody, power, or possession she was at
liberty to go where she wished. And also
ordered that reator should be at liberty to visit
the child at all reasonable times.
Anapplication was made for the dlscharge OF
MeClees who was committed to answer the
charge of the murder of Thomas Jewett. The
evidence was the same as that submitted at the
Coroners inquest, and then fully reported in
our local column.
The two men, Scott and McClees, started home to-
gether from a har-room In South street. and were seen
no more until the next morning, when Scltt Was
dying, and McClees standing over him. But there
was al most under the evidence no more than case
of suspicion and therefore the Court discharged
McClees. j. p. O'Neil and j. G. Murphy for deien-
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-Judges Allison and
Brewster.-The usual Orphans Court business was
Decisions in the following cases were read by Judge
Fenig VS. Brown. Rule for trial. Verdict re-
duced 10 $780, rule absolute,
Kelley VS.. Lear. Rule for new trial. Nerulct re-
duced TO $500, rule absolute. -
RRules for new trials were refused in the following
Hopkins VS.. Lippincott Hahn VS.. Weaver, Peale VS.
Otto, Newell VS.. leighton, Kelley VS.. Loche.