The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1870-05-19

week. Several important cases have
boon tried, an account oil which viii be
found below:
Western Nd. r, r. Co. VS.. John
Riuehart, agreement entered into by
counsel for judgment for $1,000 with
interest and costs.
Jacob Beaver VS.. W. Nd. r. R., &C,
ton for trespass, uou pros.
james w. Jordan VS.. VIM. p. Shil-
ling, action for debt, judgment under the
rule.
State use Of John s. Stausbury VS..
jesse I. Myers, action on Constable's
Bond, judgment for $500 and interest.
Sarah Copcnhaven VS., Henry Ditzen.
baugh, action for SANDER; Judgment un.
der the rule,
Grove A. Shipley vs.. Cornelius II
Shipley. action for SANDER; verdict for
defendant.
Charles McFaddenvs, Michael Barry,
action for debt on Judgment, non pros.
Same VS.. same, action for attachment
on warrant, non pros.
Sarah Myerly VS.. George W, Plow.
man, action for assumpsit on promissary
note, non pros.
Same vs.. same, attachment on origi.
nal process, non pros.
Jacob Beaver IS. w. Md. r. R., ac-
tion on case; non pros
Samuel Hoffacker vs. Lewis G. My.
erly, action for debt on single bill; re.
moved to Howard county.
Daniel Miller 4 Co. VS. The Farmers
and Mechanics Bank of Carroll county,
Judgment by confession for s304.22
with interest.
William Finknaur vs. Henry B. Lip.
ly, Judgment for sl3425 with interest
Cornelius Bollinger VS.. VIM. IL. Wei.
merit, judgment for s263 20 with inter
est.
Frank F. Iorner & Co. VS.. David L.
Feeser, judgment by confession for
s20S.43 with interest.
Kunneganda Winkam VS.. Robert
Mohar, action for breach of promise
removed from Baltimore county, verdict
for defendant for $500 damages. At
January Term, 1869, suit was brought
at Towusontown by Kunncgunda Win.
kan, Of Baltimore city, against Robert
Mohar, of Woodberry, Baltimore eoun.
ty, for breach of promise to marry.
Afterwards, on affidavit, the case was
removed to Carroll county, aud on Fri.
day last was tried. The testimony ellie.
tied that the plaintiff, a young German
girl OF about twenty one years, became
acquainted with the defendant, Mohar,
who made propositions of marriage,
which were accepted. The parties liv-
ed together for two or three years at
Woodberry, holding themselves out to
the world as married people, aud were
Recognized and received as such by
their respective families and friends
Finally, the defendant, II. Mohar, sug.
gested to the plaintiff that business
would require his absence from home,
and he accordingly conducted plaintiff
and her two children to Baltimore to
spend few days, when the defendants
real wife, who had been deserted. made
her appearance, aud the Plaintiff was
abandoned, without means to support
herself aud two children.
Bingham & Bradford VS.. VIM. r.
Steele, Judgment for sl3f94 with 10.
terest.
John b. Boyle VS.. VIM. II. Weilncrt,
Judgment for 1858 20 with interest.
John Feeser VS.. Charles L. Reck,
Judgment for S267 81 with interest.
Charles T. Ruby vs. jarrett Shauck
judgment for 1929 80 with interest.
Francis Ii. OrendOrif vs. VIM. Hook.
non pros.
Frederick L. Yingling and wife VS..
John Hesson, Nancy Hesson and others,
action of assumpsit, verdict for plaintiff
for 1924 damages.
John Brillinger vs.. John Marsh,
judgment for S4021l with interest.
State use of Joseph Croft VS.. George
W. Plowman and others, action for debt
on bond; verdict for defendants.
George w. Rowe VS.. John S. Robin.
son aud Samuel Smith, action of as.
sumpsit; judgment for sl26.l7 with
interest.
James II. Erb VS.. james L. Dodrer !;
non pros.
David Kneller, administrator of God
frey kneler VS. Mary McGinty, Edwin
j. Csumbine aud George W. Stewart,
action for debt on single bill judgment
against Crumbine and Stewart for
sl6325; non pros as to Mary McGint
John Il. Smith, agent, vs.. John Marsh
aud others. action tor debt /; judgment
for 81 1911 with interest.
Edward Wolf vs.. jarrett Shauck
Judgment for sl6627 with interest.
Miranda Barnes VS.. Margaret A.
Dorsey, administrative, and others :;
Judgment for sl75 As with interest.
John Hood VS.. Jarrett Shauck, action
for assumpsit on promissory note; iudg.
ment for sl64 81.
The Mechanics National Bank of
Baltimore vs.. George w. Manto, action
OF assampsit; judgment for s59s 80
with interest.
Same vs.. same judgment for $780,
SO with interest.
Markey A. Gcttinger VS.. Waesche &
Bro, assumpslt on notej Judgment for
$4,000
William Miller VS.. Alfred NJ. Frilchey
and Francis Butler, action for assumpsit
90 note; Judgment for sl09 %.
Washington Weant vs.. Elijah Fleagle
aud others, action for debt on single
bill; judgment for 1858 80 with interest.
John Roop vs.. Francis Barns, action
e.. In -. - III n.