The New Bloomfield, Pa. times. (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1877-188?, 1880-01-27
LReporlea ~ onas. " smnen n,q.l

Court, IN accordance with the order
directing It to be holden, convened on
Monday the 10th inst, with Hon. B. f.
Junkin, Pres't. Judge and his associates
Hon. Samuel Moss and Hon. VIM. Grier
on the Bench.
Some of the most important cases on
the list were settled by the parties, and
the balance except few continuances
were all tried In time to enable the Court
to adjourn on Thursday evening. The
first case called ON Monday p. M. was
George Leonard vs. A. q. Wilson, VIM.
Bosserman and John s. Miller. Plf.
held note against A. G. Wilson with
VIM. Bosserman and another party as
security. The name of John S. Miller
had been substituted for the third party.
VIM. Bosserman having died in the
mean time, his administrators found
this change In the note, and resisted
payment on the grounds of material
alteration of the paper by the holder
thereof. The contest being against a
dead mans estate, plff was prevented
by the law from becoming witness,
and the note itself being the only evil
dence before the jury they were instruct
ed to give their verdict for deft. Markell
for plff. Sponsler for deft
Shellenberger & Mitterling VS.. b. f.
Cauffman, was contest to find the real
balance due upon Judgment. Deft.
some years since purchased a buggy
from the plaintiffs giving his Judgment
note in payment thereof. Payments had
been made at different times upon this
Judgment, and this dispute arose as to
what was the real balance due. The
Jury determined by their verdict that
the balance remaining was only SO 4s,
and 1t was entered accordingly. Spons-
Ter and Lyons for plff. Barnett and
Potter for deft.
Andrew @. Roush and Susanna l..
Roush his wife VS.. James A. Gray. orig
mated in this way On the 9th of March
1878, Andrew G.. Roush confessed q
judgment to his wife for the sum of
$50, upon which an execution was
issued and all his property sold and
bought in by his wife. II. H. Hohen-
shildt, judgment creditor of A. G..
Roush, believing the Judgment of the
wife to be fraudulent, issued an execu-
ton, gave the Sheriff bond of indem-
nifty and directed him to levy upon and
make a sale of the property. In
addition however to the property sold
at the first sale, he sold heifer and calf
which were the progeny of COW that
was originally gift from the father of
Mrs. Roush to her. The jury found for
plff the sum of $3.50, which they esti-
mated as the value of the heifer and calf
M'Intire and Seibert for plff Sponsler
and Smiley for deft
Mary Long VS.. Benjamin Cauffman
The readers of this paper will remember
the famous Cauffman will case. How
Henry Cauffman, died possessed of an
estate worth at least $4,000, nearly the
IL .olx lxoI 4
demised to his two cons Abraham and
Benjamin. How in an action devasavit
vel non. the will was attacked by the
remaining heirs on the grounds of testa-
mentary incapacity, and verdict rem
dered in favor of the contestants, which
was reversed by the Supreme Court and
o venire de novo awarded. Then how q
change of venue was awarded and the
case carried to Snyder county for trial
where the result was verdict for deft's
The will was thus settled for all time as
to the personality, but the same heirs
brought suitin ejectment for what they
claimed as their interest in the realty, !,
thus it was expected that validity of the
will with regard to the real estate would
again be tested in q series of prolonged
contests of which this case was the be-
ginning. To the relief of the parties
interested, and to the benefit of the tax
payers of the county as well, it was
announced on Thursday that final
settlement of all disputes had been made
in manner satisfactory to both parties,
and in pursuance of the settlement the
Court was requested to enter verdict
for defendants in all of the cases. Spons-
Ter and Lyons for plff. Barnett and
Potter for deft.
Henry w. Rinehart vs.. the Executors
of George Beaver decd. was an action
of ejectment to recover certain interest
in land owned by the late Hon. George
Beaver decd, in Liverpool twp. While
the jury were snuffing the battle from
afar, an end was made to hostilties by
the plff. taking non suit. Arnold for
plf. Junkin and Sponsler for deft.
John Stayner vs. VIM. Kerhn was an
action for recovery of damages for injury
done to mule. The mule in this case
deserves some little notice, from the
fact that he is the first of his race of
which we have any recollections that
has been distinguished by having q
hearing of his grievances in Court
This animal patient and unobtrusive in
disposition, without pride of ancestry
or hope of posterity " is no unimportant
factor in the civilization of the 10Th GEN.
tury. Nature has done little to cheer
him along the toiling pathway of his
life. He knows if he were suddenly to
become blind he could never make liv-
ing by rendering vocal music, nor could
he ever become newspaper reporter
nor Sunday School Superintendent
Emancipation proclamations may blaze
like fiery Meteors in the political sky (;
socialism and communism may seethe
and bubble to the surface on the rushing
waves of revolution, turbulent tenantry
may walk triumphantly over the ruins
of landlord domination, but, alas for
the mule through all the mutations of
time there comes to him no variation