Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1877-08-22

1t was ordered by the Court that If u
plaintiffs will reduce their claim to SO th
rule discharged; IL not, rule absolute.
Same VS.. L. r. Atkinson, Admir- of d.
, vid A Dough,nan-sane rule. If plaintiff
viii reduce their claim to $50 rule di.
: charged; il not, rule made absolute.
Same VS.. William Wright and Agnes
Wright-sarac rule. Taken for considers
ton.
Holman appropriation. Money ari-n
from sale of personal property of J p Hol
man, on writ issued on Judgment of Jaco
II Fisher Surplus claimed by Doty, Par
> ker Il Co, upsD assignment of Holman
and by John Dimm's heirs upon Fl Fa is
sued by them. Held for consideration.
At lO:l5 A. n the Snyder county case
d. Bonner VS.. A. S. Cummings With notic
to Samuel TrCutmsn, Henry Troutman sn,
George E. Hornbergcr, Garnishees, wa
taken up. Charles Hover, Esq, Of Seiins
grove, and s. B. Boyer. Esq, of Sunbury
were admitted TO practice in the courts 0
this county for the trial OF this case:
Three of the Jurors having failed to re
port, talesmen, to wit. George Reynolds
Joseph MIddagh, ESD, and David Watts
were chosen TO Eli their places. Plaintiff
having judgment IN the Common Pleas o
Snyder county, issued an attachment exc
cution aud summoned the other defendant.
as garnishces, who Answered putting in th,
Cummings, asked to be made party to the
record, which MAS done, she claiming the
money attached.
The history Of this case, as nearly as We
could CLEAN it from the evidence, is As fol
lows: DR.. A S. Cummings with mis- brother
having contracted with the patentee of a
post-hole boring machine for the right OF
I certain territory, then raised company OF
| fifteen, each of whom was to furnish $1,000,
which Bohner and others did. The Cum
mings, as was alleged, actually only paid
5000 for the machine, although they had
represented that they were to pay Sl5, 900.
/ Upon discovering this, Bonner brought suit
recover the money he had paid, as being
obtained from him by false and fraudulent
/ representations, and he did obtain judg-
| ment against A. S. Cummings for 81 1850.
subsequently judgments were entered IN the
office Of the Protbonotary of Sny der county,
4. ). Cummings, agent, VS.. ii. II. Trout
man, Samuel Troutr,an and George Horn
berger. Bchner theieupon issued an attach
inert execution upon his Judgment, and
summoned the Troutmans and Hornberger
as GarnisHees. The Garnishces answered
that they owed A. S. Cummings no monev,
but did owe A S. Cummings, agent, the
amount of the judgments, which money,
mings, wife Of DR.. 4. S. Cummings, he
being her agent. Upon this answer and
her petition she was made party defend
fpt>;o this action, and upon her representa-
tiol that a prejudice existed against the
pribv pal defendants the venue was changed
10 juniata county. The case rested upon
which these Judgments We're taken to secure.
The p.dintif, attempted to prove that the
Doctor, BY Speculation and by various fraud
uient practices NADIA large sums OF money,
and asserted that the deposit in the North
lumber and Bank, from which the money
loaned had been obtained, was really his
posit IN the name of his wife. The defence
showed that Mrs. Cummings had a large
estate from her father, deceased, that BY
inv e>tInent it lad Accumulated, that the
money received as the purchase price of
land had been deposited in the said bank by
her orders, that her husband was her duly
authorized agent, having cart, blGHcts as to
the Investment Of her money, aud that I'M
der this arrangement the loans to the Trout
mans, tor which Judgment notes we're taken
and entered Of record, came TO be made.
The case began on "Wednesday morning
The jury retired at lc:l5 A. N. on Friday,
and returning at l2:I5, finding verdict for
defendants.
During intervals in the trial of the above
case and while waiting for the verdict, some
business was done in the several courts, as
follows:
The rule upon Baltzer Lauver to show
cause why judgment en- Sci Fa. should
not be opened and the terre tenants, John
II Mover Reuben Lauver and Henry Lauver,
let into a defense. Issued en- the 18th and
returnable Immediately. Was argued, and
rule made absolute. Judgment against
terre tenants opened and all proceedings on
FL. Fe. stayed in the meantime.
In Grouse vs. McManigie, the order stay
ing execution. made the sth May, 1917
before reported-was revoked.
Moorhead vs.. Selinsgrove Il n orth Branch
Railroad. Rule to show cause why judg
ment should not be marked satisfied. Con-
tinued.
Boswick VS.. Knouse & Cox. Motion for
q new trial. Held for consideration.
Haldeman appropriation. Continued.
Catharine Miller vs.. Commissioners of
Snyder county. Motion for a new trial.
Refused.
Selinsgrove and North Branch Railroad
VS. T + Rohm. Rule for relaxation of costs.
Allison's bill reduced from $3.50 to Si.26.
In John Hickman, Lydia Hoffman ct al
VS.. Isaac Hoffman a rule was granted on
Isaac Hoffman to show cause why he should
not comply with the decree of the Court,
before reported. Rule returnable Seftem-
Der 3, 1877.
An order was granted Joseph Meiser,
assignee of F Bariet and wife, 10 sell the
real estate Of his assignors.
John Mclaughlin Us. John Koons. Judg-
ment taken because defendant neglected to
sign the affidavit of defence which he filed.
Judgment opened by the Court.
A. J. Patterson, Esq, filed lis report
making distribution of funds in the hands
Of Sheriff Walls, being the proceeds of the |