The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-12-21
LEGAL ZNTELLIGENC,E.

COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS-Judge Brew.
s,er.The Ser. usual Saturday business was before the
The Commonwealth ex rel. Mlac vs.. The sheriff.
tor from charge OF malicious mischief DR.. BStcSes
the prosecutor testified that he formerly lived at No.
Afterwards, at the expiration Of his term, term,
ia S I, eniea i me tas pouSe, used portion Of l. as
he bad sole possession of the house he had put night
upstairs apartment. When he rented from Miiiao il
was that this bell was not to be dlsurbed
wire and then he attached to the puller bell that
The relator set up that there had been no written
agreement concerniI this BILL and he made this
doctor. but for his own convenience
keep the peace, and allowed him go hame dis
charged from the accusation.
street car 10 NV which The jury acquitted the
Philip DE Young, the prosecutor, Stephen Remnk
moved the Court to remit that part Of the costs that
good cause why This should be done n' '"O"su
been speicepty served by the acquittal the defen
dant but this was case In which the Doctor was in
visited with Costs The motion was Sc granted. -'' 10
All &c was made on hSSe&s tb for the
the ground that he enlisted the lst OF August last
shown that Herns never did apply for his discharge
n6f o n IN WAS ts issued d
month. The Judge said that in this though the
making the contract yet his long acgulescepce was
by 1t. Therefore the application was refused.
The Libel Case.
The motion for new trial in this case was called up
for argument, and the following were as
slgned:-
l. The verdict was contrary to the law and evil
dence.
Q Because the learned Judge erred In admitting the
testimony of Richard B. Wood, under tile offer to
prove that in the month of September 1866 the de-.
iendant, In conversation with him, spoke of libel
he had published In his paper against Eager by
means of the artful spelling of his name, and said he
could In the same manner libel the District Attorney
ana he would libel him tomorrow IL he thought he
uhe District Attorney would prosecute him..
3. Because the learned Judge erred In admitting In
evldence newspaper alleged to be the Sunday HeT
4, Because the learned Judge erred In quashInR
the Indictment upon the reasons assigned.
s.. The Indictment Is detective for duplcIty,
6. The Indictment charges the defendant with
writing and publishing act alleged be libelIous
and the Commonwealth was bound to charge as
averred in the Indictment.
T. That the paper writing set out in this ndIct.
men does not purport the face of 1t written
of the party who Is said to be libeed that there are
no averments to connect him with the meaning the
writings and the inuendoes which undertook to en-
large or change the of the words employed
null and VOd so that there Is no specification of
oepse beyond the mere writing and publishing OF the
paper ITSELF
the face OF II, Is not libeOue.
Q. That ev dence was admitted TO prove an iuuendo
and make different offense from that charged
ia the Indictment. viz The offense writing names
which are unmeanlDg, and then saying by such
names ah individual is meant
At the close OF our report the argument had not
been concluded.