The New Bloomfield, Pa. times. (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1877-188?, 1879-03-18
AReuMEsT LIST.

p. X. Brandt for use OF q. Cary Tharp VS..
Michael Miller, Theo. Miller and Philip Peters,
aud same vs. Michael Miller, ,Theo. Miller, Jno.
Patterson and Philip Peters were cases tried at
a former term of the Court, n full account of
which was then given to the readers of the
"Court Proceedings" In this paper. motion
for new trial was made by the plaintiffs and
the reasons pro and con were urged before the
Court, which after patient hearing holds the
granting of q new trial under consideration.
b. II. Alexander for use of W. III. Mlnick vs.
j. w. Thompson, w. Il. Clemson, w. II. s.
Cook and O. NJ. Clemson, was rule to show
cause why judgment should not be opened
and the defendants let into defense. After
argument the Court directed the judgment to
be opened as to all the defendants, and the
lien of the Judgment and the levy of Il. fa.
Issued thereon TO remain.
Peter Sholy vs. John Shull was like David's
psalms, "Another of the same" Shull, the
defendant, gave Sholly Judgment for pur-
chase money OF real estate, and when an eX-
ecutlon was Issued thereon, he came into Court
aud applied to have the execution stayed and
the judgment opened for defense on the
grounds that the real estate was burdened with
encumbrances, when the agreement was thata
title to the premises with full enjoyment un-
cogged and unfettered was to have been given.
Argued and the judgment opened as to 81, 900,
and as to the balance the stay of execution was
revoked
Newport Building Association VS.. Michael
Hartzell was q case In which the money arls-
Ing from the sale Of the deft.'s real estate, was
ruled into Court for appropriation. Deft. was
one of the sureties upon the bond of William
Zlnn, late PM, (which means Post Master" In
Nasby's yernacular. When the places which
once once knew the late Z. NJ, knew him no
more, perhaps forever, the sureties llquidated
his arrearages with their Uncle Samuel and as
the co.sureties upon the bond with Hartzel paid
al.
Of u. 3. Government, whose claims are always
first liens upon q debtors property, and that
the amount which Hartzel was to contribute
must be first paid out of his property to them.
Argued and held under advisement.
Abraham Good, Plff. in Error, &C., VS.. Jacob
GiDgerlch. Deft. In Error, &C., was certiora-
ri to Joe. Walt, ESQ, to remove the proceeding
In judgment rendered by him. Although in
this case the plG. could not be anything else
than "good," unless his name was changed by
an Act of Assembly, yet the Justice did not
deem his case good, and the result was that the
pl6. was not suited because the Justice non
suited, and when the case came before the
Court the Judgment of the Justice was af-
frmed.
In the appropriation Of the proceeds of
the real estate of Alfred q. Stewart, of
Duncannon, contest arose between w. j.
Stewart and the Susquehanna Building Associa-
tion, both of whom were lien creditors and both
claimed a certain balance of the money Argu-
ed and held under consideration.
Perhaps no vessel ever tossed on the heav-
ing blliows Of the "raging canawl'' that has oc-
cupied so much time, and been go conspicuous
in litigation as the canal boat j. B. Hartzell.
II has already been the subject Of prominent
notice In the annals of the Court, and It Is only
necessary now to say that the last phase of
the case was an attempt to arrest the sale of
the boat by the sheriff upon a writ Issued by
w. X. 3. Cook on Judgment obtained Upon q
libel for repairs. Amidst the uncertainties as re-
CARDS the true owner Of the boat, there was d
certainty established and that was that CoolE
u Co. repaired the boat and were never paid
therefor, and 10 an opinion flled the Court re-
voked the order arIesting the sherlff's sale,and
now In all human probability the sheriff will sell