The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-06-08
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUARTER SE SIONs-Judge Peirce
the weIi-Enown firm Of David s. Brown & Co, Nos.
A and 46 South Front street. in which the wife, Mrs
length been concluded on diit rent occasions was
ms 70 & anS saGn Je
the friends and relations OF the parties. The details
of the and the standing OF the parties in society
The following able decision was given this morning
City VS. Moore Peirce, 1.-THE complaint in this
self from his wife whout reasonable cause, leaving
her charge on the city, whereupon warrant of
Guardians OF the Poor to take and sezeso much OF the
goods ana rights ana ceails ana Tecei We SO
tenements Of the said defendant TO w.t. his mOnyes.
!fS fS'S and dna SGtai' ana @ staeE
Of meShandse ais En- IN stores Nos: q ana AZ SoGGn M
shall raise the amount of twenty five thousand dol
rant Of seizure, but there is an afndavit endorsed
upon The warrant made by Mr. B. r. Sel6y, agent for
OF seizure and accompanying papers on David s.
deendant and others that the seizure as directed,
had been made, and that said warrant would be con
said city, unless sufficient cause be shown 10 the
10 this complaint the defendant put in an answer
denying that he had deserted his WIFE and charging
October 1866 and setting forth that the said writ Of
seizure hsd issued @ and that the the COM
from the SAD county, nor WIN an lntenon on ms
Court, nor with removing his properly from the said
Jurisdictions and averring that he was still resident
ofTemoving either his person or properly thererom
Why these latter averments were Introduced does not
appear as there seems 20 be nothing Ia the law that
requires them,
Upon !he proceeding thus commenced the parties
appeared in the Court OF Quarter Sessions, and the
heard upon the merits ON the questions Of
law and fact arising In the case. II was alleged, on
behalf OF the dc eendant, that this proceeding was
under the act the 3lst of March, 1872 aud It's sup
plement the l4th of March, 1914, which ap ply spe
cRly the city OF Phila ephia and which authorize
n seizure only of the goods and chatels aud rents
and profits OF the lands and tenements OF the hus
band, but also his rights and credits, with notice
thereof the garnishee person in whose hands the
rights and credits OF the defendant In the said warrant
or seizure shall be- and provides for the ng of inter
rogaores TO the garnishee to ascertain the property
or credits IN his possession. And it was further
alleged that In such order of maintenance
could be made against the husband as the act must
be pursued according TO its terms by filing iuterroga
tories to the garnshees and recovering into the pos
session of the Guaro ians the amount admitted or
proved TO be due by the garnishees.
ON behalf of the city Il alleged that this was
proceeding under tNe act of 1886 which authorizes the
seizing OF the goods, and chattels, and rents and
profits OF the real estate OF the defendant and in de-
fhut OF suucent real personal estate then TO ta6
the body OF such defendant and TO require OF him
rty for his appearance at the next Court OF Quarter
Sessions and for want fsuch security 70 commit him
10 the jail OF the county.
IL has been decided that the words goods and chat
es in the act Of 1880 do not Include chooses In action