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

Court" Potter and Sponsler for plH
M'Intire and Barnett for deft.
In this case upon motion OF q. j. Il.
M'Intlre, ESQ. Andrew Il. Deer, ESD, OF
Luzerne county, was admitted to prac-
tlce law In the several Courts of Perry
county and he also appeared as one OF
the counsel for deft.
@. r. Richards and Christlana Richards his
wife for the sole and separate use of the said
Chrlstlana Richards VS.. The Farmers and Me-
chanics Mutual Fire Insurance. Company OF
TYRONE Spring, Centre and Carroll townships,
Perry county, Pa. Mrs. Richards owned cer-
tain property in Savie township. Some months
since, while she and her husband with their
family, were on a visit TO Juniata county, the
barn was burned to ashes, the house was badly
damaged and part of its contents were con-
sumed, and she brought this action to recover
dameges for the injury sustained The defense
was that The fire was the work OF an lncendiary.
Latimer Trego brother Of the plaintiff, II was
alleged, aided and abetted by others OF her near
relatives burned the buildings 10 order TO OBJ
tain the insurance money, and the plaintiff was
pdrticeps crimints The incendlarism was sat
isfactorily established, but the jury did not be-
lleve that Mrs. Richards was party to II and
gave her a verdict for $54s.O2. sponsleS, for
plaihtifl-Barnett, for defendant.
Mary Fennice by her father and next friend
Adam Fenncle VS.. Charles Bates and Mary
| Ann Bates. Mary Fennicle, who Is now mar
| ried woman complains that In December last
| she was Spinster, "heart whole and fancy
| free' she was injured in her fair fame and rep
| utatlon by Mrs. Bates, who took upon herself
| the task of Informing the public that the plff.
| was about to increase the population Of this
| country In manner that has been In vogue
since the days of the Patriarchs, although
frowned upon by orthodox society, and declar-
ed mlsdemeanor by the vlgor of the law. Mrs.
b. defended by saying that at one of those
little gatherings Of women, which are the escape
valves of gossip for every community, she con-
trlbuted her mite by throwing into the boiling
pot of discussion bit Of rumor that had reach
ed her ears. For this indiscretlon the jury
awarded q verdict for plaintiff for $5 and costs.
Sponsler, for plf-Barnett, for deft.
John T. Robinson vs.Samuel l.. Hollenbaugh,
The case involved long settlement between
the parties. Sometime since the defendant sold
out his store to the plaintiff. Payments were
made In accordance with their agreement from
time to time by the plaintiff, but in the mean
time the defendant had been running bill Of
considerable length, SO that at the time the
difficulty began the plaintiff claimed that fair
settlement of accounts showed quite q balance
In his favor. Various charges In the books Oi
plaintiff were disputed and the trial required q
long and tedious examination of the accounts
The Jury went out on Saturday evening and re-
turned verdict on Monday morning with a
verdict for plaintiff of si66 90.
Another jury having been empanneled to try
case on Monday, which hes not yet been con
cluded, the balance of the court proceedingt
will be reported next week.