The New Bloomfield, Pa. times. (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1877-188?, 1879-08-12

upon his trial In the quarter sessions for
the first count contained In the bill.
The Jury were satisfied in the bill. The
jury were satisfied they knew "who stole
the ham" and returned verdict of
guilty on the 1st count, and not guilty
on 2nd count.
The next indictment against him was
for stealing a mattock, gum blanket,
clothes-line and table cloth from p. Nj.
Jones, Esq, as In the first case the
property was found In his possession,
and the jury had no difficulty in return
ing a verdict of guilty on the first count.
The third case was an Indictment
charging him with having stolen from
the residence of Miss Elizabeth Lackey,
a lot of lard, flour, sausage, pruning
knife, pair of stockings, q lot of can
dies, etc. This was burglary and he
was tried In the court of Oyer and Ter
miner and found guilty.
A number of indictments were still
pending but this thing was growing
monotonous and as 1t was already with
in the power of the court to sentence
him to cnfinement for term so long
that he could not give the present gen
Grafton any trouble, 1t was agreed that
the other cases should be laid before a
jury and no evidence being offered
verdict of got guilty should be rendered,
which was accordingly done. Nolle
Prosequis were entered by the common
wealth in the case of John Henderson
and this leaves but one member of the
gang, Lewis Morrison yet at large. AS
hewill either be captured, or kept away
by the local reward offered for his arrest,
the citizens of Carroll township, and the
adjoining township in Cumberland
county may congratulate themselves on
the assured security of their person and
property through the long nights of the
winter that is fast coming on.
Com. VS.. Edward Ross and Henry
Weon was an Indictment containing
two counts, the first charging Defts.
with rape, and the second assault with
intent to commit rape. The Defts. were
boys from the borough of Marysville or
its vicinity, and the offense was alleged
to have been committed on the body of
Annie l.. Morthland, little girl living
in the same neighborhood. The boys
claimed to have been indulging only in
a little rude fun and that wrong con-
struction was put upon their action,
but the jury deemed their conduct suffi-
GENTLY bad to justify them in finding
verdict of guilty on the second count of
the Indictment.
Com. VS.. Ann Smeigh, Mary Smeigh
and Carrie Smeigh. Indict. larceny
1st count, and End count, receiving
stolen goods. The facts in this case were
as follows: Mrs Smeigh in the early
part of the month of April last, dislik-
ing the exclusiveness of a life in the
country, left her husband, and with her
daughters Mary and Carrie, blooming
and by no means unattractive young
ladies took a residence in the upper end of
the borough of Newport. Not long after
this, the store of G. X. Brenneman was
broken into, and considerable quantity
of salt, candies, soap, sugar, prunes,
etc., were taken therefrom. Suspicion
rested upon this feminine trio, and a
search warrant in the hands of Con-
stable Sailor turned up the very proper
ty taken from Brenneman, together with
wash basin belonging to Daniel
Thompson, chair, cushion, lot of fan
mel and.woolen goods belonging to Mrs.
George w. Charters, and brown coat,
hatchet, etc., which had been taken from
Mrs. Lobaugh. This property was all
discovered in the house concealed in
sundry ways and divers manners. The
explanation given by Defts. was that at
q late hour one night, stranger called
at the house with some bundles contain
ing these goods, and upon their refusal
to give him lodging he requested per-
mission to leave his bundles there. They
were taken in, and owing to house clean
ing which followed the next day they
were distributed around in the myster-
ious manner in which they were found.
A mother with babe at her breast and
two daughters not yet out of their teens,
is difficult thing for Perry County
Jury to confront, but nevertheless they
deemed the evidence sufficient to require
q verdict of guilty in the charge of re-
ceiving stolen goods on the whole four
hilIa nf indintn1 mt which laid ha
fore them, as to Ann Smeigh the mother
and Mary Smeigh, and not guilty, as to
Carrie Smeigh, with recommendation
to the mercy of the court. They were
Immediately sentenced to pay the costs
of prosecution-a sentence which was
received with applause by the audience,
who evidently were in sympathy with
the unfortunate females.
Com. VS.. Samuel Reed was the next
case called. He was charged with steal
ing horse from Edward @. Gault of
Fishing Creek Valley. If itswere posi-
BILE to get up patent for o horse thief
no better model could be obtained for q
deposit in the Patent Office than this
Deft. The evidence that he stole the
horse was irresistible, but fortunately
for Mr.. Gault he got no further than
Harrisburg, where he disposed of him.
Rather than let the jury pass upon his
case he plead guilty.
Com. VS.. James +. O'Brien John Ford
and Mary Baker. The men in this case
were criminals of some notoriety whose
countenances would be conspicuous
men in rogues gallery. They were
charged with stealing a wagon from
Wesley Hays, and with breaking into
Pennell's Church, and committing lar
ceny of certain things belonging to the