Juniata sentinel. [volume] (Mifflintown, Pa.) 1846-1873, 1873-09-03

John Ii. Patterson, Greenwood.
John Knox, Tuscarora
Henry Bay, Susquehanna.
Isaiah Berkey, Turbett.
Samuel Bell, Fermanagh.
Samuel Minnichan, Perry.ville.
The following qualified their mega
tive by saying "Not that | know Of"
viz
Robert Pollock, of Lack, Emanuel
Bortel, of Milford, and Daniel Coffman,
of Beale, while John Caveny, of Fay
ette. still further qualified his return
by saying "None that has come under
my notice"
But one, John Mcconnell, of Mon
roe, openly admits violation of the
law in his bailiwick and answered
squarely, EYES," and the last constable
on the list, Joseph Kerlin, of Patter.
son, squarely lodged the question and
TO it made 10 reference
To the question care there any OBJ
structions in the highways?'' AL re-
turned negative answers, except Bell,
of Fermanagh, 4" Yes, from Mifflin to
the foot of the Narrows the road is in
a very bad condition from Mifflin to
Lost Creek, and the foot log across
Lost Creek at Allison's fording is not
yet up, and the bridge across the basin
and road from A. Stoner's to the Pike
Is in bad condition.
State Bank vs.. Neal McCoy.-Con-
tinued at costs of defendant apd the
cause is hereby ordered for trial at the
rext term absolutely.
John W. Stoncbreaker VS.. Samuel
Lauver Action in ejectment for a
tract of land in Black Log Vall,y, Ju-
niata county, containing 25S acres and
90 perches. This suit, although Gesig-
mated ejectment, was not so much for
the re-possession of the land as to de-
termine what amount was due from the
defendant to the plaintiff on the same.
and to enforce its payment. Stone
| breaker sold the tract 10 tue father of
the plaintiff, who died in last May
Defendant continued the possession.
Plaintiff had rendered a deed which
defendant refused TO accept alleging
that the chain of title was not good.
Plaintiff attempted to prove paper title,
but a slight hitch in same occurred, but
which plaintiff alleged was cured by
statute. Plaintiff, however, proved by
parole an uninterrupted adverse pos
session of premises for more than q
years, thus curing hitch in paper title.
After charge by the Court, the jury
found verdict for the plaintiff for the
land described in the praeclpe to te
released upon the payment by defend
ant to plaintiff, of the sum of S34S.6S ;
one-haIf thereof to be paid on the first
day of April 1874, aud the balance on
the first day of April, 1875, upon the
plaintiff filing witt! the Prothonotary p
sufficient deed for the land described in
the praecipe to defendant, his heirs and
assigns.
Jonas Alexander VS. Samuel Alex.
ander .-Assumpsit. In 1871 Mrs.
Prudence Alexander, wife of Samuel
Alexander, the defendant, resident Of
Lack township, in company with The
plaintiff, her grandson, went to Esquire
Woodside's and there made an assign
ment of two promissory notes, one
against j. p. Titzell and the other
against w. ID. Walls-amounting tc
Sl20. in ALTO her grandson, the
plaintiff. Mrs. Alexander from that
date has lived separate from defendant
Defendant claimed these notes as bis
property, his name as payee being IL
the body of both along with his wife
Squire Woodsides refused to pay the
money to either plaintiff or defendant
hence plaintiff brought suit agains
him. Defendant had himself substi
tuted. On trial deposition of Mrs. a
was offered, out was objected to, anc
to cure the objection, she was sabstltu
ted as plaintiff for use of plaintiff
Ills, however, wouldn'; still 90, wher
the Court suggested as compromise
that the amount in controversy be di
vided. This was agreed to, wien judg
ment was entered for $43., neithe
party to tax costs.
Il. 4. Parker, endorser of John II
Clay VS.. l.. W. Doty, Admir- of Joh1
Robson, decd. Appeal from Justic
Huzzard. John Robson in his lif
time endorsed or became surety on
note for n. B. Alexander to John II
Clay. Clay transferred note to Parker
Alexander had confessed judgmen
for amount before Justice Kreder., bu
the judgement could not be collected
Hence suit was brought against Robi
sons Administrator. No dispute as t
facts, the defence being purely testimo
nial. 1t didn't avail, hence judgmen
for plaintiff for $37, 90 and costs.