Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-02-10
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.


NOUnT Ok COMMON PLEAS.
Before Judge Livingston.
The first cases taken up in the afternoon
were those of Charles Gill vs.. Andrew
Eichholtz, Henry Erisman and John Me-
Dewitt. The plaintiff in these cases is 4
constable and resides in Coatesville, Ches
ter county. In the year 1877 gang of
thieves were operating in Chester and Lam
caster counties, and Robert Black, Ches-
ter county detective, was engaged in work.
ing up the case. He came to this city and
made complaint against the parties
before Alderman Spurrier, who made
out a warrant, which was given
by Black to the plaintiff Some
time then elapsed and the alderman
also gave warrants to the three defendants.
who were constables in this city, so that
they might be on the lookout for the
thieves, who were operating in both coun-
ties. McDevitt arrested two of the gang
in Baldwin, and warrants were served on
the others by Gill and by defendants
in the West Chester Jail. The
defendants made the usual re-
turns to the alderman and on then, the
cases were sent to the November court of
1877. True bills were found. but when
the cases were called it was found that the
prisoners had all been convicted in the
Chester county court and had been sent
prison for long terms. Verdicts of not
guilty were therefore TAKEN After the cases
had been disposed of, the Lancaster con-
stables in tho usual way, proceeded to
draw their costs from this county Their
bills were paid, and when the plaintiff dis
covered this he brought suit against the
defendants, to recover 4 share, which he
alleged to be due him for work done, before
Alderman DOnnelly, of this city. The de
iendants appealed from the alderman's de-
cisiOn and the case came into court. After
the evidence of the plaintiff was in the de-
tense asked for non suit on the grounds
that they had failed to show any conncc-
tion between the parties, and if the plain
tiff had any claim it was not against the
defendants. The court granted non suit
and remarked that if the plaintiff has any
claim it must be against the county, and
Was a matter for the commissioners and
solicitor. The amount claimed by Gill was
$40.
In the case of Close & Kretz VS.. james
p. Knight, judgment was entered in favor
of the plaintiff for Sl46.s6.
The case of George NJ. Steinnan & Co.
VS.. Jacob Druckenmiilcr and Catherine
Druckenmiller, his wife, summons in eject
ment, was compromised BY the parties
The case of o. p. Brubaker VS.. Samuel
Shaeffer was settled.
Frank Schlegelmilich VS.. Mary Eskert,
by her guardian, Jacob Jansen, issue to try
the validity of IA paper purportins to be
the last will and testament of Frederick
| Eckert, deceased, late of Marietta. Geo,
II. Ettla and Z. d. Roath, esq.,, the SUBJ
scribing witnesses, testified that they
signed the will on May %, 1877, in the office
of MIR. ROath, who is Il justice of the peace,
in the presence of tho deceased, who said
read to the jury. BY it Frank SchIeseL
milicf, the plaintiff, was made eXecator
of the estate of deceased, and the defend
ant, his daughter, who is the only living
relative of the deceased in this country,
was allowed an annuity of $50. If the
defendant would die without issue tin,
principal OH which this annuity was paid
should so to the relatives of the deceased
in Baden, Germany. The will was read to-
the jury and the plaintiffs then rested.
| The defense then called witnesses to show
that the wife of the deceased died in 1860
leaving an only daughter, who is the de-
fendant, and who is cripple. The amount
left to this daughter is not sufficient to
support her. Previous to the death of
EckCrt he was very hard drinker, and
his mind was not sound while in this
condition he was influenced by Schlegel-
milich, who desired the defendant to
marry his son and was angry because she
revenge upon Eer. A part of
the defense was that the de-
ceased was immoral in his conduct,
not only to strange people but also to-
wards his daughter, the defendant. Pre-
viOus to his death he said he had done
something wrong at the 'squire's Office he
had not done right by his daughter and
wished to do so. At this time, it is al
legged, that he wanted to get up out of bed
and go to the 'squire's Office, but Schlegcl-
milich told him not to do so. Since the
death of Eckert the executor has done
nothing for the support of the defendant,
although the will provides that he shall.
On trial.
before Judge Patterson.
Elizabeth Mishler,- administrative of the
estate of Benjamin Mishler, VS.. p. ".
Hiestand and HiIaire Zaepfel. This WAS
an action in trover and conversion
to recover 4 large mirror which
was in Mishler's Exchange hotel Centre
square, this city, when it was
purchased by Mr.. Hiestand. This mirror
was claimed by the plaintiff who was not
allowed to remove it by Mr.. Zaepfel, the
occupant of the premises, who was acting
under the instructions of Mr. Iiestand.
The defendants admitted that they were
unwilling to give up the mirror when asked
to do so by the plaintiff. The plaintiff
called witnesses to prove how the glass is
fastened in the wall, they stated that it
was there as other glasses are. They also
proved that the glass was valued at 800.
Henry Shubert, auctioneer, testified that
he sold the real estate but did not under
stand that the mirror was included in it.
The defense was that the glass was
necessity to the convenience Of the bar
room, as it was fastened to the wall and
the shelving built around it. The property
was mOrtDaDed at thc f;ma tb.