The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-05-19

u. =. District COurt-.Judge CadwaIadcr.
The bankruptcy miscellany engaged the attention
OF the Court this morning.
District Court, No. I-JudGe Thayer.
Riley, to use, Bunker Brothers h Co. An action
10 recover on an oil contract Before reported. on
trial.
District Court, No. 2-Judge Hare.
John @. Williams vs. C. G. & f. Sellers. An action
to recover arrears OF rent for the premises No. Is
North Sixth street The defense alleged that plain
tin agreed to put the property in good repair but
failed to do so leaving it in an untenantable condi
defendants, rent in arrear $780, and value OF goods,
5000.
Law & Krug vs. Ephriam Hnlegus. An action on
mechanics lien TO recover for painting defendants
property. On trial
Court of Quarter SessiOns-AIlison, P.J.
The trial OF William and Margaret Wilson upon the
charge Of larceny consumed this mornings session
From the testimony it appears that on Saturday
morning, the 5th instant Detective Miller observed
the prisoners and a number OF companions visiting
various stores in Second street. and suspectng their
purpose, kept n close watch upon them. In the
course of their piferng peregrnatons they went to
a tea store, and the willy detective saw packages
secretly passed between the prisoners, and upon
their departure arrested them at Seventh and Arch
streets, the party having in the meantime paid their
respects TO several tailor shops At the Central Sta
ton they were searched, and various packages
of tea and chocolate were found upon
them, which were found TO have been stolen from
the tea store. Also upon the woman was found a
lift skirt, such as is usually worn by professional
shoplifters. This evidence was thought to be con-
elusive, but the people who were thus caught row.
ing about the city in Squads and perpetratng their
experienced in such cases. whose ingenuity falling
TO how both could be rescued, devised means for
the escape of one and worked at it with will. He
produced evidence to prove that the mans name was
Mcconnell, and that in 1858 he and the woman were
married, and from this he argued that the theft
charged in this case being committed under the eye
Of the husband, and by his aid and direction, the law
presumed it to have been by his command, and dis
charged her from the penalty usually attaching to
the ofTense At the close of our report this point
was being discussed.
Court of Common PIeas-Judges Ludlow,
Peirce, and Brewster.
This morning the election contests were brought
into Court by William B. Mann, Esq, who COM
planned that at the investigation before the Exam
iners one John McGucken witness produced by
the respondents, and Democratic inspector OF the
Seventh division of the Seventeenth ward, had, upon
examination, refused to answer question put
him respecting transactions at the November cleo
ton No objection was made to the question by
counsel, but the witness had taken upon himself
to Judge of its competency, and declined to reply,
upon the ground not that an answer
would criminate him, but that he was supnnaed to
testify with respect to the October elections, which
alone the subjects of these contests and there
fore the gentleman Mr. Mann, had put question
which had no reference to the case. This Mr..
Mann thought highly improper on the part of the
witness, and therefore asked the Court to direct him
to answer, unless objection made by counsel, or
the answer would tend to criminate him.
The Court advised McGucken according to this re-
quest, and so the matter rests.