The New Bloomfield, Pa. times. (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1877-188?, 1880-11-02

The first case was an action of ejectment
brought by VIM. M. Mccoy VS.. Eliza
beth Jones, to recover small patch of
ground in the possession of the defend
ant lying and being in Penn twp. There
has been considerable litigation between
these parties, civil and criminal, grow
ing out of this mutually disputed potato
patch, and 1t Is now decided by the YER
dict In this case to belong to William M.
Mccoy, but In as much as the law per-
mits further actions of ejectment before
the title is definitely settled perhaps the
end is not yet reached. Sponsler for plfR.
Barnett and McAllister for deft.
The second case of Jacob Bretz VS..
George w. Blattenberger, was continued
till next term.
The third case on the list and the
second case tried was The Pennsylvania
Canal Company vs.. George Losh, a suit
brought to recover damages under the
Act of April 10th, 1926, Section, o. The
plaintiffs alleged that Losh had unlaw-
fully, since 1875 till date, constructed
and maintained at Losh's run, a device
for taking water from the canal for his
own purpose and use, by opening q
channel In the bernie bank of the canal
to trunk constructed TO the head race
of Losh's saw mill through which trunk
the water from the canal was diverted to
the injury Of the said plaintiffs, The
jury returned verdict against the de-
fendant and in favor of the plaintiffs for
$1.00, six cents damages and the costs.
The plaintiffs submitted to the Court
during the trial that they did not sue to
recover any money from Mr.. Losh but
simply to define the rights of the respec-
tive parties and stop the nuisance. And
1t was accordingly left to the jury to say
whether they should fine $1.00 or $1,000
damages and no more. Col. Francis
Jordan and Q; J. 7. M'Intire for plff.,
and Chas. A. Barnett for the deft.
The Quarter Session cases having
ended on Thursday afternoon the next
case on the civil list was taken up. This
was an action by John G. Kipp VS.. The
School District of Tuscarora twp, to
recover from the township $500, money
paid by him as bounty to fill up the
quota due by the township, said town.
ship having paid for eight men and the
demand on them being for nine men.
Mr.. Kipp had been drafted and he paid
$500 for substitute and the man was
credited to the township and Mr.. Kipp
charges it $500, and this action is to
recover that $500 The township author
tiles had given Mr. Kipp bond for $500
and this suit was to recover on the bond.
But inasmuch as there was no lawful
power to give such bond vested in the
authorities at the time they gave it the
Court was of opinion that the plaintiff
could not recover. Still to save the legal
question verdict was taken for the
plaintiff for $500 and rule entered to
show cause why judgment should not
be entered for the defendant, Non
obStante veredicto, or, in plain English,
in spite of the verdict. w. A. Sponsler
for plfi., and Chas. A. Barnett for deft.
p. A. a hi VS. Samuel Lay. Continued
The fourth case tried was John HI. G..
Kinter and brother, creditors of Kirk
Haines, decd, VS. The United Brethren
Mutual Aid Society, Life Insurance
Company. 1t seems that Mr.. Kirk
Haines in his lifetime had a policy on
his life in this Company for $4,000 taken
out for the benefit of his creditors.
Messrs. Kinter and Brother. The In.
surance Company resisted the payment
of the money on the ground that Mr..
Haines in his application for the. insur-
ance made false representations, and
that the insurance was given to him on
those representations. A great deal of
testimony was heard by the court on
both sides of the case,-and, perhaps, on
four sides of it-consuming all of Fri
day in the hearing. 1t seemed to be the
object of the defendants to show that
Mr. Haines was in dying condition
when he effected this insurance and con-
cealed the fact from the company, and
the purpose of the plaintiffs to show
that Mr. Haines was healthy man in
vigorous life and capable of taking his
solid and fluid refreshments with ex-
emplary regularity and gusto. 1t may
well be supposed that the evidence was
conflicting. 1t was. Anything more
conflicting 1t would be hard to imagine,
unless it were right and wrong or their
equivalent Republicanism and Democ-
racy. The Court gave an able and fair
charge to the jury on the law of the
case, stating substantially, ~ that if
Mr.. Haines was suffering from dyspep-
sia or other disease at the time of effect
ing the insurance aud knew 1t and pur-
posely concealed that fact from the com.
pany the plaintiff cannot recover, and
~ if dyspepsia and the other complaints
were such diseases as were material to
be known by an Insurance Company
and Mr.. Haines failed by forgetfulness
or inadvertency TO state his Affections
when applying for the insurance in that
case the plaintiff cannot recover, and (3)
If his ailings were not material to be
known and could not effect the risk If
known and the Company was not pref
udiced by his failure to disclose them
then the suppression of them by him
was unimporta Mt and the plaintiff can
recover, and (4) if Mr.. Haines was in
fact not diseased but was at the time
healthy man the plaintiff should recov-
er. The jury brought in verdict for
the plaintiff for $33l73 80. Sponsler &
Barnett for Plff. McIntire & Benson
for Defts.
Enenoinoar We Tho Earnnars, MnfuaI
Fire Insurance Company. Continued.
1T. Robinson VS. Samuel A. Hollen-
baugh, was the case next tried This