Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-01-23
COURT OF QUARTZ. SESSIONS.
January Regular Term.

ESnleman addressed the court and SUGGEST
ed that the cause of justice would be best
served by taking verdict of mot guilty..
county for costs in the case of Com til VS..
Franklin Smith. Judge Patterson said the
court fully cOncurred with the district at
torney. The case against defendant had
not been made out; it was not shown that
the teacher had inflicted any more punish
ment than was necessary to subdue the
boy. The law permits the whipping of
pupils, and if a small whip like the one
used is not sufficient to conquer 4 reirac-
tory child, the teacher may use u cowiiGe.
The misconduct of school children is often
owing to the want of authority
and discipline at home. Parents
who permit their children to
grow up without proper restraint.
must expect them to grow up lawless men
and women. Teachers, while the pupils
are in their care, possess all the powers OF
the parent, even to inflict severe corporal
punishment when milder means fail. The
court instructed the jury to render a YER
diet of not guilty. The jury did so with
out leaving the box.
Com'th vs.. David Lowe, larceny The
defendant was charged, in connection with
Henry Myersand Henry Keller. with steal
ing, breaking up and selling the fragments OF
large copper kettle belonging to Barbara
Sherrick. of Sprinsville. Both Myers and
Keller pleaded guilty and implicated Lowe,
but there was no other evidence against
him. Judge Patterson charged the iurv
to acquit, sayin. he would never give his
consent to the conviction of IA defendant on
the unsupported evidence OF confessed ac-
completes The jury rendered verdict Of
not guilty without leaving the box
| Com'th VS.. Henry IIildebrand, adultery
with Annie IIarlacher. Defendant pleaded
guilty and his counsel asked for sentence.
The district attorney asked that sentence
be deferred. there being other serious
charges against the defendant.
Com til VS.. Peter Foreman, assault and
battery. Complainant VIM. Il. Mock tcs-
titled that defendant and a man named
VIM. Hindman assaulted him and checked
him on the road in front OF Jacob Groa-s
house, Churchtown, on the night of the
eth of May last. Mrs. Croft who saw the
affair, corroboratcd Mock's statement.
For the defense it was shown that Mock
was a married Elan and had been seen
keeping close company with young sister
of llindman, only Is years old, who was
employed as domestic in Forcman's
house and had been placed by her brother
under Foremans special care, and ut the
time of the alleged assault, after II clock
at night, Foreman and Hinlman had gone
to Grof's and seen Mock in company will,
the girl, and on meeting him asked him what
he meant by keeping her company, where
upon Mock raised his hands as if to strike,
and Foreman then caught him by the
shoulder pushing him back but not hurt
ing him. The jury rendered a verdict of
not guilty with costs to be equally divided
between the defendant and prosecutor.
Com'th vs.. Isaac Hauck and Jesse Laf-
ferty, larceny. The prosecutor, John NJ.
Musser, of Earl township, testified that he
was the owner of 4 piece of woodland near
the Welsh mountains. He had missed
from this land a quantity of posts, rails,
cord wood and poles. He does not know
who took it away. He brought several
witnesses who swOre that they had seen
llauck carrying away wood from Musser's
land on a hand cart, and one or two OF
them bad seen Lalferty in his company.
but only one of them (a Mrs. MulD had
ever seen Laflerty take away any wood.
For the defense, {. number of residents
of the neighbOrhood testified to the good
character of both defendants: they passed
their houses very frequently and never
saw any kind of wood at either place ex-
cept old dead wood which would have
rOtted on the ground had it not been gath
cred. One witness testified that he had
heard Mrs. Null say that she had cleared
4 defendant in former suit before this
court by swearing falsely, and several wit
nesses swOrc that Mrs. Null could not
have seen defendants haul wood from the
point at which she was standing when she
saw them. On trial.
The grand jury returned the following
bills
Irue Bills: John Lichtenberger, en-
tering Outhouse to commit felony "a in
dictments) Mary Wise, malicious mis-
chief; John Diehm, felonious assault
GeOs W. Mumma, assault and battery
Leonard Schoenberger, assault and bat
terry; Isaac Hauck, larceny Jesse Latter
ty, larceny.
Friday M0rning.-In the cases of com'th
VS.. Isaac Hauk and Jesse Laifcrty, lar
ceny, the charge was not pressed against
the latter and In regard to both the jury
rendered verdicts OF not guilty,
Com'th VS.. Henry Wilmer, of Chickies,
fornication and bastardy. Elizabeth Com
fort. OF this city, who is amarried woman,
but don't know where her husband is, tes-
titled that the defendant is the father of
the child, which was begotten either i'll the
last week of March, 1879, OF early in April,
and born in December. Several witnesses.
who live near the prosecutrix, testified that.
| they have not seen her husband for five
| six years a son of the woman had not
seen his father for five years and he be-
lieved him to be dead.
The defendant being called to the stand
testified that he was not the father of the
child the prosecutrix told him she was
married. Two witnesses heard the prose
cutrix say that she intended putting this
crime on Wilmer as he had $500 in bank
and she wanted 5000 of it to furnish her
house. She told another that a young
man (the defendant is Old loOking) was
the father of the child. Dr. Westhaeifer