The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-03-30
LEGAL INTELLIGENOE.

COURT OF OYER AND TKRMINER-Judges
Peirce and Ludlow.-Tne trial of James SHIELDS
at tTwenty.third and Chestnut streets, on the
night of November 2 last, before reported, was
The defense set up that the defendant did not
lnn1ct the wound from which the deceased
oisd: alleging that he himself was beaten and
harm his adversary, he went no ne. The de-
ceased also went home from the saloon with
out any one OF those who witnessed the occur
renee knowing that he was hurt.
subsequently he was discovered to be wound
ed; was removed to the hospital. where, in the
course of q few days, he died. And IL wasargued
by them that there was no evidence that the
stab was given In the tavern, and consequently
none that the defendant gave IT, Therefore no
jury could conscientiously convict of the felony
OF murder upon such case. and no court could
AT the close of the evidence the Court was re-
quesied to direct the jury at once to render a
better to send the case to the jury, and the
arguments of counsel were begun.
DISTRICT COURT, No Judge Hare.-Henry
Vile VS.. the Howard Express Company. An
action TO recover package of $3.50. alleged to
tin with the defendants as common carriers,
for delivery to Mr.. SlideIl in this city, and
never to have been delivered.
The defense set up that they forwarded the
package slralghtway to this city, and at once
render It to him; but, il being pnbIic holiday,
the store was closed and no one was there TO re-
ceive 1t. Upon this their liability as common
carriers with regard to this package ceased, and
they were no more than ordinary deposlta:ies,
of 1t as of their own goods. It
was returned 10 their office. in Chestnut street,
above Sixth, and locked mp. with other valu-
ables, for safe keeping. That night afire broke
out in the building, and spread so rapidly tnat
the watchman in charge of the premises was
enabled to save only such articles as he could
lay bis hands on. Every possible effort was
made to rescue the property, and in fact, onlv
three packages were lost. OF which the plaintiffs
was one. Under this state of facts the defense
denied their liability. On trial
DISTRICT COURT, No. 2-Judge Stroud.-Bro.
lRskey VS.. Wilson. An attach ment execution.
Before reported. Verdict for plaintiff, $3.50.
King d Baird vs. Bullttt & Fairthorn. An
action to recover money alleged to have
been received by defendants for the of
plaintiffs and not paid over. The plai ntiffs put
into the hands of defendants claim to be col
lected from parties in 81 Louis, and
the defendants forwarded IT. to their
attorney in that city. This latter
person received the money and appropriated
II to his own use, and the plaintiffs seek to hold
The defendants responsible. Toe defense set up
that at the time the claim was handed to them
they gave the plaintiffs n printed receipt in
which was the condition that the defendants
should not be liable for losses by war, fine, or
misappropriation by agents. They forwarded
the claim to a man whom they esteemed per-
fectly competent and honest, and the plaintiffs
entered into the transaction fully coguizant of
these conditions and therefore they were eX-
empt from liability. On trial. Cnas Gibbons,
Esq, for plaintiffs; Samuel Dickson, ESQ.,, for
deen dantS