Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-05-15
COURT QUARTER SESSIONS.
April Term.

Friday Atternoon.-COurt re-assembled
at p o'clock. The case of the common
wealth VS.. Thomas Chamberlain, Levi
Eckert and Peter f. Hess, charged with
the larceny of oysters, oranges and pea
nuts from Stephen Lamber, at the Gap, on
the night of January 20. was resumed.
The defendants denied having taken any
of the articles from prosecutors wagon.
They allege if anything was stolen, it was
done 10y Others, who arc now fugitlves from
Justice. Mr.. Eckert, father of one of the
defendants, testified that the prosecutor
had, on three different occasions, offered
to settle this case, asking the first time
$40, the second $50, and the third time
$40. A number of witnesses testified that
Peter T.. Hess's character for honesty was
good.
The argument in the case was not con-
cluded when court adjourned uutil >
o'clock.
Friday Erening.-The whole of the even
ing session was taken up with the argu-
ment Of the cases of Levi Eckert, Peter
Hess and Thomas Chamberlain, charged
with larceny.
An "Episode.''
During the examination of the wit
nesses the district attorney had reflected
upon Messrs Reynolds and Brubaker, of
counsel for defense, for their examination
of witnesses who had been subpGnaed by
the commonwealth but who, it was salts
factorily shown. had been represented to
them as witnesses for the defense.
In his closing speech to the jury Dis
trict Attorney Eshlcman said that in max
ing this charge he had simply been giving
expression to Il principle of professional
etiquette taught him by his lamented pre-
ceptOr, and that he regretted giving ex-
preston to it, but repeated his opinion
that the conduct he complained of was
outrageous.
Messrs. Reynolds and Brubaker at one
sprang to their feet and denounced the III
sinuation as cowardIy, and Mr.. Brubakel
said that if the district attorney charged
him with improper relations with the
witnesses the charge was that OF black
guard. Mr.. Reynolds also resented il
with great spirit and Indignation. Judge
Patterson raped and ordered them to b'
quiet and sit down. They declined to d.
either until they had repelled the assault
made upon them.
Judge Patterson apologized for the dis
trict attorneys offensive remarks and SAT-
they had no greater significance than a
his own individual opinion. But MessrS
Brubaker and Reynolds insisted on thei
right to have the court say to the jur
that the district attorneys remarks wcr
unfounded.
For a time there was considerable excite
ment over the episode i'll the bar, which
was finally suppressed by the court. Afte
this breeze the jury was charged and yer
diets of guilty were rendered. the cour
having said in its charge that in passing
sentence it would take into consideration
the '.sadness'' of the case.
Regular Proceedings Resumed.
Saturday Morning-Com'th VS.. Lancas
ter city. The city was indicted for neglect
ing to keep North Prince street in passa
ble econdition. The chairman of the stree
committee stated that if the case would b
continued until August the street woul
be repaired. The court said that the
would do all in their power to break u
the practice which cOnstabies indulge in {
returning cases of this kind to court o
complaint of a fe " persons on the stree,
The complaint should he general on tn
part of the citizens of the street, to wal
rant the constablcs in returning a neSlec
of duty case.
The counsel for John B. Dennis filed rea
sons for a new trial, and the defendan
gave additional bail in the sum of $5O(
John c. Croft, Of Mount Joy, became hi
surety.
The surety Of the peace cases were take
up shortly after court met and the juror
were discharged.
Com'th VS.. E. Wellington Yundt, sure
ty of the peace Caroline Hartranft swor
that the defendant had threatened to XII
her, and he was ordered to pay the cost
and to enter into recognizance in til
sum of 5000 to keep the piece.
Commonwealth VS.. Samuel Fowler,
this city, surety of the peace and desertiol
The complainant in the case was Olivi
Fowler, defendant wife, who testified til;
he abandoned her and made threat
against her at different times. Iii
treatment was so bad that daughter (
the defendant was obliged to leave home
although the parties live together at tt
present time, they do not eat at the sam
table. The witness stated that she brougl
the suit for fear that he would desert he
Several other witnesses testified that tn.
heard defendant make threats.
The defendant upon being called to IL
stand testified that he never struck h
wife, who has thrown smoothing irons
him. She is extravagant and abusive al
will not do any work for him. Witne
always kept domestic to do the wor
The trouble with his daughter arc
from the fact that she and Ii
mother went to a store and boug