The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1875-03-04
Court Proceedings.
TcoNT1NUED FROM LAST WEEK. ]

ceased The Judge took the papers reserving
his decision.
The argument of the cases of S. w. Palmer
& Bro. vs. J. Ingram Allcnder, and of Dresser
VS.. Sebring, was laid over till later In the
week.
On Wednesday morning motion was made
by Mr. Burnett for the continuance of the case
of Greensweig vs. Hartzell on account OF
material witness, but the matter 10 be proven
by him being admitted by the plaintiff, the
motion was refused.
The application of Christian Hitler for Ii
cense for an eating house, was then taken up
there being remonstrance, signed by many
citizens of Stroudsburg. Four witnesses were
examined on each side, after which the case
was fully argued by Mr.. Davis for petitioner,
and Mr.. Holmes for remonstrants. His Hon
or took the papers reserving his decision.
A Jury was then called in case of Daniel Sta
pies VS.. Jacob Miller. This was an action of
scire facids to revive judgment of Sept. Term
| 1857, S267 q in amount, with interest from
Sept. 35, 1867. The jury had only to figure
up the interest and give verdict for plaintiff,
amounting to $4O4 96. Davis for plaintiff,
Burnett for defendant.
On Wednesday afternoon the application of
James Werk heiser for an eating house In Tan
nersvile was first called, there being remon-
STRANGE. The matter was argued by Mr..
Holmes for petitioner and Mr.. Davis for re-
monstrants The Judge reserved his decision.
The case of Charles Henry VS.. Reuben Ney-
Il rnYl
upon a book account, running from April,
1866 to spring Of 1868. The Jury rendered a
verdict for plaintiff for S2S6 72. Davis for
plaintiff, Burnett for defendant.
The case of Joseph Greensweig VS.. Reuben
Hartzell, Edward F. Hartzell and Reuben
Hartzell, Jr., was next called. 1t was an action
of eiectment for farm Of 131 acres in Eldred
township. Greensweig entered into an agree
ment in May, 1872, with Edward F. and Reu-
ben Hartzell, Jr., to convey the land to them
for certain figure: $3.50 to be paid at e1ecu-
ton of agreement, $500 ten days after, $500 on
receiving deed and balance in 5000 annual
payments; possession to be given defendants IN
January 1873. The first $3.50 were duly paid
FL Subsequently it was arranged that defendants
should take possession on December II. 1877
since, which time they have held possession
without paying any cash. The action was
brought to enforce the specific performance o.
the contract verdict was given for plaintiff
for the land described in the writ provided
that no writ of possession should issue if de-
fendant on or before May II, should pay into
i Court 81. .2S6 q and judgment notes for balance
of purchase money as per agreement, and
should make the $500 annual payments as thu
! agreement required and that the Plif. shoulc
not take this money out of Court until he de
posted therein deed in fee simple to +. +
and Reuben Hartzell, Jl., for the land descri
bed in writ.
On Thursday morning His Honor, declared
the applications for eating house licenses
> Christy Hitler, of Stroudsburg and Jane
Werkheiser in Tannersville refused.
The case of Peterson & Carpenter VS.
Timothy Miller was next called. Action OF as
sumpsit for use Observing machine. In Angus
1871, an agreement was entered into between
t Miller and the agent of Peterson & Carpenter
j that the firm should lease to Miller sewing
machine at $40 per month rent for months
at the end of the term Miller should delive
: the machine at the Office of plaintiffs in Phila
0 delphia, or upon payment of SIS more, provi
d ded the other terms of the agreement had beer
r fulfilled by defendant, plaintiffs would trans
i fer all right to the machineto him. The de
t fendant paid $40 on the machine and retained
e it until May, 1874 when it was taken away b,
] lI.lo oF ,bo md emit oil,
v for balance of rent, amounting to $50. De
fense was that there was a radical defect in thi
q machine, that it would not do the heavy worl
4 for which defendant especially desired it ant
" work it was warranted to do by plaintiffs
= Plaintiffs proved by James Boys, the agent
4. that it would do heavy work in hands of com
petent operator that defendant bathed the ma
chine in sweet oil every time it was used AM
gummed it up so that it was impossible to ru
= it at all. Verdict for plaintiffs for so Sc
amount claimed with interest. Holmes 70
r. plaintiffs, Burnett for defendant.
Is Case Of Mark Miller VS. Joseph Carlto
e and Joseph Sees, was next on the docket
- y 1t was an action of scire .tacias sur n,ortga9
;ie upon mortgage security for 1925. Thi
E was long and tedious case the title to tn
- - land coming into question. Verdict fo
: plaintiff for sl60 90. Burnett for plaintiff
s. Holmes for defendant.
IS Henry Marvin VS.. John Marvin, Scir
% Facias Sur Recognizance in Orphans Cour
'e Judgment confessed for Plaintiff, amount t
be liquidated by the Prothonotary
- John S. Fisher, Executor of Frederic
: Kiser, decd VS.. William Gilbert, Execute
W of Peter Gilbert, decd. Action on not
to against Peter Hufsmith wherein Peter Gi
bert was security. Judgment confesse
r.. for Plaintiff, amount to be hquidated b
ks Prothonotary.
The case of David Everitt vs. Timoth