The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-10-09
LEGAL INTELLIGRNCE.

COURT OF oUARTRR sEssIoNs-Judge Lud-
loT;MWlils% Ii: suSomaD so Prosecu!nE Attorney
fu 70 .s IF 16e Of
His that be Should dn ss ns to sne
to bs received In that Institution. ""' WV ''N
John 8 Hail pleaded guilty TO charge OF larceny
Jacob eideli pleaded guilty to charge Of the la
Company having been detected In The act OF csrrynS
from the % %SSmpany,s oI sroT sGnn nas ,,.,
an alias to her name pleaded guilty to chsge OF the
81 no
menis for the purchase OF goods 70 the amount OF
Hotel, and having thus disarmed the shrewd:
nsss hs she s Ss place ~ her a
with several pairs q fine pants she Of o1rssws.
officers Of the law in much less arstocraic quarters
She had gone TO several other stores aud ordered
was not known 70 have stolen any other articles than
ELECTION MATTERS.
Some few days since upon the application OF GER
tain citizens, the Court mt de an order that the Sheriff
SS%iSe as the pSeCnot house ,or holding the ELECTION
in the Second ulvlson OF the + teenth ward place
dinerent nom shas designated In his general proclA.
This morning Mr.. Simpson, the sherIffs adviser
In the preparation Of the proclaim alton asked the
s electors s " % any sieoon dstelcs should e Ss
be Sss Gafy suoa ssh05S district a'y osyns e'
n n In. for shs s %
upon the Iea 9isi,ion Of Only electors
forming with the rcquisitions of the law In thai
Messrs. Cassidy and Gerhardt opposing this appl.
cation, Insisted thar the record Of this preliminary
@ Geaersy thereoe as se
STOOD they did not see how the Court could this
Both Judges Lud ow and Pierce coinc!ded in this
latter view of the case and refused the application
NISt PRIUS-Chiei Justice Tn ,mpson.-John w
Murphy and Dennis Kennedy VS.. the City Of Phila
equity praying an INJUNCTION on the following allie
be by contracE obtained by previous advertisemen
to sdd
recent act OF Councils the eonstructioa q
70 open the char ehanne, Sf C,hocksipk creek g
10
,ss S fs ae shs
hesih Of July following eIscI.ed coatrse. tor the
land Kneass the city Engineer was in duty bound to
submit 10 Councils for their approval but he neg
SnG made
,s haa already pd and they refusing ito 20 bid fur,
bidder under this second .adserfisemen.. sad
fore the plaintiffs pray the Court declare that the
rS resrSp %snM NJ scksnd knea.s making any
% ns sny
,he OF money I to the said Mooney and
and 10 rssran the said MOONEY e
ing with the said work.
The answer OF the defendants set forth that under
th advertisement Of June the plaintiffs were not the
lowest bidders. but Andrew Hague Co. were, and to
them the contract awarded; but these parties
gave the contract, leaving IL TO be let out anew
The question whether should be then
TO the plain IFS they being the lowest bidders aer
Hsyns & Co.; but Councils ordered that the work
done, ard then Mr.. Mooney, without having been
previously informed OF the pla NJ ff former bid, be
was also contended that the act of May ls. 1885,
lied upon by pn5s ola BARI no. apns 20 SpnSa taai
supplies. for which each department made yearly
time such estimates were made aud the city had
right refuse TO give the contract to any of the bid
ders and to make the experiment of letting by
advertisements, And finally. the plslnliis we're not
entitled TO the Interrogation OF court OF equity since
they had ample remedy at law for pllance
OF con II they said the city upon their bid had
cor Dtraeted to alOt them this worK.
Under argument.