Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-02-04
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Before Judge Livingston.

In the case of John NJ. Hershey VS.. Gee
H. Moore, the plaintiffs, in rebuttal, called
Tobias Hershey, who testified in regard to
the consideration defendant gave for the
note and stated that s477.O9 was paid June
8, 1872, note for $500 and an order on
Solon Cherry for 1896, which was shown
to have been accepted and paid. At the
time defendant signed the note he did bus
iness for himself and witness did not know
that his brothers had leased the farm. The
case was given to the court shortly before
noon.
Louis Stark VS.. Joseph Stark. This was
an action to recover s64.2 the amount of
bill claimed by the plaintiff for black
smith work done for the defendant. The
defense was that the plaintiff shod defend
ants horses in manner that caused them
to bc hoof-bound, and he was therefore un-
able to sell them at the time he desired to
and was compelled to keep them for sew
eral months. BY this alleged injury the
defense claimed to he injured to the ex-
tent of $50. The jury rendered a verdict
in favor of the plaintiff for s46.S7.
Thomas Furniss VS.. Henry n. Brene-
man. The history of this case, which had
been previously tried and a verdict of
$6G7.67 rendered for plaintiff, is familiar to |
our readers. They will remember that
Furniss was county treasurer and a politi- |
cal partner of Levi SenseniS; Breneman |
was a candidate for sheriff and Kendig |
tax collector and small politician in Provi- |
dence township. With a view to getting |
his assistance for their spool" ticket |
Funiss agreed to take Kendig's check
for 81 900 in part payment of the county
taxes and allow him the five per cent. abate-
ment granted for prompt payment, and
Brencman endorsed the check. 1t was
not paid Kendig alleging that he had been
robbed after collecting the taxes and
Breneman denying that the check had been
duly protested and alleging that he had
never received any consideration for nor
incurred any liability by his endorsement.
Mr.. Furniss testified that he got the
check from Kendis endorsed by Breneman,
who asked him not to present it at bank and
hc would see it paid; that Kendiy had
paid onc-third of it balance never was
paid.
For the defence Levi Sensenig testified
that he wrote the check on the day of it's
date, at the Lancaster County house ;
Breneman, Furniss and Kcndig were there,
Furniss said he would not use it, as Ken
digs sureties were good, and lie would ,
not want Brcncman to pay it; the
reason FurllisS wanted Breneman' S
name to 60 Oh the check was
that, being county treasurer. it would l
not do for his (Furniss' 50 name to appear t
these arrangements were made at different
places witness could not tell exactly where
it was drawn up. The arrangement was
for Kendig to make $50 for himself and to 5
secure Kcndig, for this amount, to fight for
Grissingcr. 1t was got up to make votes 1
for GrissingCr, Furniss's candidate for 9
county treasurer don't recollcct having .
any conversation with Grissingcr in re-
gard to this matter.
Rc-examination At the time of the l.
making of the check it was said that Mr.. }
Breneman was to incur no responsibility
On account of this check. t,
During the cross-examnatiOn of Sen b
scnig Mr.. Kline, counsel for Furniss, pro- a
posed to inquire of Sensenig concerning !,
the ''pool of that year on all the candi- u
latcs, but Judge Patterson would not al t
low the question.-lsEr.l Il
On trial n