Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1873-12-10

1ao oeeb settled IN suit kcfore /!
him, and in which Captain J aok fell in |
debt to deft, which be afterwards paid !
On this Captain Jack took a non su,f. !
eeIaclng himself with the remark open |
iy expressed that "Ezekie didn't get
verdict anyhow" The suit ought never
to have been brought, AID would not
had Captain Jack told his counsel wha,
was proved by Justice Woodside in
court.
Margaret NJ. Hunter VS.. II. L. Shear
er. Action in Replevrn. John ".
Scott, brother Of plf, owned stage
line running from Mt. Union to Orbi
sonia. His stock was seised by the
Sheriff of Huntingdon county. In or
der TO release 1t he sold two mules to
plff, for which she paid Linn in haud
S215. The money was paid in pres
ence of tie deft. PIE allowed Scott
to use the mules for time, and after
wards took them from him. One Of
them while in this place was seized on
a writ in favor o. deft, but immediate
ly delivered back to plf On a writ of
replevi1. This suit was to test owner
ship Verdict for plff.
p. S. Liggett VS.. b. F. Grouse. Ac-
tion in Assumpsit. As plf IN this case
took non suu when the case was call
ed, We deem 1t useless to notice it fur
ther.
Jacob Weisor vs.. Henry Bey. Bey
was the constable of Susquehanns town
ship, and as such sold tenant of VI Ell
ser's out on an exemption execution
" eiser claimed some of the money as
rent on landlords warrant. Bey re-
fused to pay him out of proceeds, hence
this suit. Verdict for plff for SIS,
under instructions of the Court, which
held the matter open for the purpose Of
examining into the Law on several fine
points submitted, which ilay yet change
the judgment.
Richard johnson VS.. David Smith.
This was The case Of the term, not only
in Importance but also as TO the amount
involved, the number of witnesses IN
attendance, as well as the interest man
ifested in the result. Richard John
SOD, the plaintiff, is a tenant on the
farm of :, ohm Thompson, which adjoins
the farm of the defendant from the
canal across the pike mp TO the ridge
Deft, in November, 1872, without no
tice to plf, removed division fence
/ between the two farms, from the line
back upon his own land, thus throwing
open field of plaintiffs which was
we'll set in wheat johnson, when he
found it out went aud made fence on
Thompson's land to close up the gap,
which was at the pike. Deft threw II
down, or had it thrown down several
times, in fact, as often as 1t was rebuilt.
In the meantime cattle found the open
ing and trespassed on the wheat
The plaintiff brought tins suit for
the damages sustained to the wheat.
lie proved that IN 1864 his landlord
aud Smith had divided the fence be-
tween them, that the fence was on the
line, tina; Smith removed it entirely, and
then threw down and removed new
fence put up on Thompson's own land
by plf. Deft attempted to prove that
no division of the fence had taken
place in 1864, that little if any dam
age was done, aud that while be, per-
haps, had committed a trespass, 1t was
not done maliciously. The case was
ably argued on Friday night and Sat
urdas morning, aud the jury, after a
fair charge from the Court, found YER
dict for the plaintiff for $i20. A mo.
ton was Immediately made for new
trial, when the Court granted ten days
for the counsel to file reasons for the
same.