The New Bloomfield, Pa. times. (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1877-188?, 1880-03-30

ulu- Like Jne lneOrlateu lnuiVluuui III
the story, he could not climb the tree, so
he laid down ut the foot, and there pass
ed into that long dreamless sleep from
which he never more could wake. The
jury found that Hockey was free from
blame, and the verdict was for deft.
MIntire and Markle for plff. Sponsler
for deft.
The next case was Newport Building
Association VS.. j. r.. Dunbar and Sarah
Dunbar. j. II. Dunbar owned stock in
the Association, and Sarah Dunbar his
wife owned real estate. Dunbar wanted
to secure loan upon his stock, and at
the instance of the Association transfer
red the stock to his wife who gave q
mortgage upon the real estate as security
for its payment. The question to be
determined under all the peculiar cir
cumstances of the case was the actual
amount due upon the mortgage. The
verdict was for plff. for $l14.23. Barnett
for plff. M'Intire and Sponsler for deft.
Newport Building Association vs. John
Sailor. This was another case growing
out of the peculiar workings of such
| associations. There were no Building
| Associations in the land of Uz when Job
| lived, hence the old patriarch could cul-
| tivate his boils, sit down in the ashes
and scrape himself with his potsherd,
! and still resist temptation. In this case
| the minute book contains the following
entry: "By consent of the parties
verdict for plff for $4O0, that being col
lateral security for the money borrowed
by deft. out of the plffs. association the
Company having agreed In our presence
to reinstate deft as 2 member Of the
| Association with all the rights OF a
member who pays up,'' Barnett for
| plff. Sponsler and Sponsler for deft.
| hTtIlar T. MAresontp
er or reputed owner and Wilson w.
Morrison Contractor. Some time since
| j. Morrison built dwelling house in
the village of New Germantown
Plaintiffs done all the painting therefor
and not receiving any pay for 1t, they
filed q Mechanics Lien against the build
ing. To Scire Facias issued upon the
lien Defts. filed an affidavit OF defense
alleging that the work was not properly
done. The fact was developed that ].
Morrison was married woman and the
lien did not contain the necessary allie
cations to bind married woman's sepa-
rate estate. Plaintiffs took non Suit.
Markell & Smiley for Plf. Sponsler
for Deft.
J. H. Zimmerman VS.. ]. G. Barrett J /.
O. McClintock & w. r. s. Cook trading
as ]. G. Barrett & Co. Defendants had
been the proprietors of The Newport
NetUs and the Plaintiff, a journeyman
printer had been working for them for
wages. He claimed balance due him
for $50 while they admitted a balance
due of $11.20 which they paid in Court
as tender. The difficulty sprung out
of the the fact that the plaintiff had also
been employed by Furguson and Fry
the former owners of the paper, who
were also in debt to him, and when Fry
who became the editor under the new
administration made payments to him
to the indebtness of the old firm. This
the defendants refused to permit and
hence this action. Verdict for Defts.
Sponsler for Plff. McIntire for Defts.
Jesse johnson vs. Chas. Troutman.
The only statement of this case which
this report can give is that the minute
book states " Plaintiff takes non suit. y
McIntire for Plff. Potter & Sponsler for
Deft.
Geo. w. Huston vs.. Francis w. Glib
son. This was an action of ejectment
founded ON original title and proved to
be very interesting case. In the year
1893 on the 25th day of February, appli-
cation for warrant for a certain amount
of land was made to the Land Office oi
the Commonwealth by Mrs. Ann Glib
son, the mother of Chief Justice Jno.
Bannister Gibson, Gen. Geo. Gibson and
pursuance of the application was made
on the 21st day of May, 1876, and the
purchase money, CT, s10, was paid. Nc
further proceedings seem to be contained
among the official records, but the evil
dence shows that the land designated by
the lines of the official survey was taken
into possession and partly, at least, en-.
closed by fence. In after years, how.
ever, the fence was removed and ths
evidences of cultivation, if any existed
was obliterated. In the year 1859
James b. Hackett who was then County
surveyor, made application for warrant
covering tract of land or considerable
part of 1t, in the name of VIM. Hackett
and perfected his title in accordanc,
with the requirements of law. The title
was then conveyed to James b. Hackett
who in turn conveyed the same to Geo
w. Huston. Francis w. Gibson claim.
ed to have the legal title to the land
through the Ann Gibson warrant and il
order to test the validity of his claim he
cut some growing timber, so that al
action of tresspas might be brough
against him in which the ownership o.
the land could be tested. This disputed
tract is in Carroll twp, and runs arounC
the well-known Gibson's Rock on Sher
mans creek. The many knotty points
of law raised, and the zeal displayed by
the counsel on both sides in an unusual
ly vigorous contest, invested the cas-,
with a great degree of interest. Under
the instructions of the Court verdict o
$3.50 was rendered for plff. M'Intirt
and Sponsler for plff. Seibert and Mark
ell for deft.
Simon Charles and Mary Charles hi
wife for the sole and separate use of tn
said Mary Charles ys. The Franklin Fir