Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1879-05-07
Court Proceedings.

last week, with the President and As
soclate Judges on the bench.
The constables presented their re
turns, and the grand jury was charged
License was granted to those VIII,
peshoned the Court to keep an in1
and sell liquors.
The case of Thomas Shellenberpe
VS.. Mary Sellers ct al. was continued
Ditto, the case of VIM. L. Noun
vs. John Balsbach ct al.
On account of the illness of E. S
Doty, Esq, Sr-, the case of Henr,
Hockenbrought, admir-, VS.. DAME
knouse, admir- of Amos Miller. de
ceased, was continued.
Ditto, the case of John Dobso,
Jones ct al, VS., p. r. r. Co.
The case Of John Kepner VS.. j. S
McCahan was settled.
Ditto, the case of Isaac Lonpacr,
VS.. Overseers of Poor of the borough
OF Patterson.
The case of Benjamin Fisher ant
Daniel Fisher. adm'rs of SamT Fish
er, decd, VS.. d. b. Spanogle and Sam
uel Stem, was continued.
Ditto. the case of Adam Ernest VS.
S. I. McCuiloch.
The first case before a jury was
that of George w Jacobs, execute,
Of Mrs. Mary j. Hertzler, deceased
VS.. Solomon Hertzler, husband Of
said decedent Mrs. Hertzler was
the owner of property, or money
and having no issue, she wilied abou,
one-half it away from her husband
Mr.. Hertzler refused to accept OF
recognize the provisions of the will
A feigned issued was framed and the
case was brought up from the Regis
ter of Wills to the Court for adjust
ment- The defendant maintained
that because of some unexplained
cause the mind of the wife had been
brought to a state of incapacity to
make viii. The Court charged that
if the jury found the mind of a wife
who had property to will, in an un-
sound condition, that because of that
unsoundness of mind she cannot will
that if the mind of a wife, who has
property at her disposal to viii, has
become unduly influenced against her
husband, she cannot will it; that if a
wife, who has property at her dis
posal to viii, is in a sound state of
mind, she can make a lawful will.
The jury found verdict againt the
viii, that is, III favor of the husband
The case of J. NJ Bunnell VS. VIM
H. Patterson, executor, as well as the
viii case above mentioned, was an IN
teresting one. 1t was about a sew
ing machine. In the year 1874 an
agent, selling machines for Mr.. Bun
nell, began to stop at the house of
Mr. Patterson in Iuscarora valley, as
he journeyed through the valley to
sell machines. OF course, he always
wanted to sell Mr.. Patterson a ma
chine. The agent often remained
over night at the house of the latter,
took supper and breakfast, and was
never charged for the same; 1t seem
ed to be free, open, old fashioned hos
pitality, and every time the agent
offered to sell machine Mr.. Patter-
son and Mrs Patterson were en-
phatic in declining to buy. They de
cIined to buy for want of means
Sometime in 1875, during the preva-
lence of a snow storm, the agent left
a machine at Mr.. Pattersons house.
He told Mrs. Patterson to use it, and
showed her how to work it. She
used it occasionally. One day the
agent brought Mr.. Bunnell there,
and he insisted in selling the machine
to Mrs. Patterson, and got down on
his knees in his appeal to effect a sale.
But they did not buy, and after the
agent and the boss had exhausted all
their business tact to effect a sale,
Mr.. Bunnell said he would make a
present of a machine to Mrs. Patter-
son, and asked her to select one from
a catalogue of machines; but the lady
refused to select. The machine was
left at Patterson S, Just as 1t had been
at the time of the snow-storm- But
by and by the agent came around one
dav. and wanted to know something
about the pay for the machine. Ger
tainly such demand must needs sur
prise the family The agent was told
that the machine had not been bought,
and stood at his disposal any time
Suit was brought for the recovery of
the price Of the machine The jury
found for the defendant, Patterson
The case of Amelia Turbett, exec
utrix of Stewart Turbett, decd, VS..
David Wilson, was settled.
In the case of VIM. Cox VS.. Jacob
Shelley and John Shelley, for lum-
Der bill, the jury found for the plain
tiff.
In the case of George Deitz VS..
Conrad Feltman, the jury found for
Deitz, in the sum of one dollar for
damages, and the defendant to pay
costs. 1t was suit for SANDER. 1t
had been charged that the plaintiff
had Incorporated barrel of flour,
1t was not said in that way; it was
said that he had stolen it.
The case of Daniel Coffman ct al,
VS.. Andrew Patterson and Mary Pat
terson YVES settled.
The case of Fanny Fronk ct al, VS..
John Musser, trustee, resulted In a
verdict for the plaintiff. This case
grew out of a loan of money to Mar
tin Weaver by Fanny Fronk. Weaver
failed. Tobias Weaver, brother of
Martin Weaver, was party to the
obligation to Fanny Fronk. When
Martin failed to pay the obligation,
Tobias was called ON to do so, but he
could not, and such effects as he had
in his possession were Claimed by his
wife as hers, and such inheritance as
it is presumed that the brothers had
in their fathers estate had also been
assigned. The action was on feign-
ed issue to test the validity OF the
assignment Of the inheritance.