The New Bloomfield, Pa. times. (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1877-188?, 1881-08-09

the deed aud divided the epoils but on the
other hand there was no evidence tracing the
goods Into their possession and no proof OF their
taking them, and, consequently, the case
against them was necessarily Insufficient to
convict. There was such reasonable doubt
arising from oil the evidence that n conviction
under the circumstances would, legally speak
ing, have been wrong, and the District Attor-
ney therefore stated to the Court and jury that
he could not ask for the defen dants conviction
upon the evidence presented, which view was
concurred In by the Court In his charge to the
jury, and the jury found them not guilty with
out leaving the box. W. A. sponsler and
Dist. Atty. Wallis for Com. w. A. sponsler
for def'ts
CIVIL TRIAL LIST.
IIetty Fisher os. II. o. Orris use. (Feigned
lssue). In this case n canal boat was levied
on by the creditors of Gustave Fisher as his
property, which, subsequently, was claimed
as the property of Hetty Fisher, defendants
| wife and 1t was to determine the title and
| ownership of that boat that this suit was in
sttuted. Mrs Fisher it appeared, had pur-
chased the boat and paid for it from money
raised by mortgaging her dwelling house.
| The dwelling house itself she showed had
been built by her with money got from other
sources than her husband, on lot, paid for
by her out of her own money the title TO
which was in herself II was attempted to be
| shown by the creditors of Fisher that Mrs
Fisher had conspired with her husband to
cover up his property to keep it from his
creditors but the evidence did not sufficient
ly establish this to the satisfaction of the jury,
and their verdict was in favor of 1etty Fish
er.-Barnett for plaintiff Sponsler for def't.
p. a. Ahl CS Samuel Lay. Trespass The
plaintiff who is from Cumberland county,
sued the defendant for trespassng on his
| land, certain tract of 23l acres of wild land
in Kennedy's Valley, Perry county. The
suit was brought to determine the title to the
tract on which defendant had in legal par
lance 'squatted," +" the plaintiff having the le-
| gal paper title deed. There was evidence
showing that prescriptve title to the land
was attempted 10 be secured by the one under
whom defendant claimed, by clearing, fenc-
| ing and cultivating portion of the land but
much doubt existed whether prescription was
perfected on account of the uncertainty of
time during which this cultivation was kept
up and continued. TO establish a squatter's
titlet to land, requires the strongest evidence
| and most positive proof Of an adverse, con-
tinuous and uninterrupted use and cultivation
of the land for period of q years. This the
defendant failed to produce, and consequent.
! ly, the jury found for the plaintiff. .--Leidicl
from Cumberland Co., for plaintiff SpOnsler
for defendant.
John Tlluma cs George Eberts This was
an appeal from n Justice on horse sale
trouble. 1t appeared ON the trial that Eberts
| bought horse from Thuma for $780, and
| paid $50 ON account. Afterwards, finding
| the horse not good for anything except to eat
| his own head off, Eberts refused to pay the
balance of the purchase money, and Thuma
and he had talk together about it, and
Eberts then paid Thuma $50 which, accord
! ing to his version, was to be in full payment
| Of the horse. But Ihuma it seems did not so
understand the matter, and he simply applied
the $50 on the account, and sued Eberts for
! the $40 balance due, before the Justice, and
got Judgment for that sum, from which
| Eberts appealed and took the case into court.
Then, after the witnesses had their say and
the lawyers theirs, and the Court his, and the
| spectators theirs, and after consuming days
time i'll the trial, this very important and in
teresting case involving the munificent sum of
500 was finally decided in favor of the de-
fendant.-Sebert for plaintiff w. a. Spons-
ler and j. E. Junkin for defendant.
e. r. Baker as. John e. Pierce. In this
case there was no contest, and verdict was
entered for the plaintiff for s2975. w. H.
Sponsler for plaintiff; and w. A. Sponsler
| for defendant.
rs. Whitekettle and Co. as. Fred Bar
rack Verdict for S52.93 in favor of the
| plaintiff. McIntire for plaintiff Seibert for
defendant.
Mrs j.. G.. Steinberger gs. Lewis Potters'
use. (Feigned lssue) Plaintiff took a nom
suit. w. ii. Sponsler for plaintiff; Barnett
for defendant.
Frances NJ. Rinehart as. jeremiah Rine-
| hart. suit brought to recover for the sup
port and maintenance of the minor child,-
! II little girl,--of the defendant The plaintiff
IS the divorced wife of the defendant and
the child was born to them during their mar
I-age. The parties were married in 1863 and
divorced in Dec, 1877. The little girl is now
about six years old. The divorce decree
made no provision as to division of property
or the support of the children. Kinehart,
however, upon the rendition of the decree,
took three of the children to raise and edu-
cate, and left the fourth the lttle girl in
question, with her mother, refusing 10 ac-
knowledge its paternity, and consequently
denying its claims upon him for support and
maintenance. The case was sad one to lis
ten to and provoked regret in many minds
| that It ever got into court. The marital diff
ficulties which led to the divorce, and the
pain ard sorrow of the sundered family were
| necessarily touched upon in this unfortunate
trial, and the recital enlisted the sympathies
of the people in a painful manner. Who was
! right and who wrong, it Is not the function
! of the reporter to determine. Upon that
| question he has no opinion 10 publicly eX-
! press. There was evidence given of con-
| tract, made after the divorce, between the
parties, settling all their monetary matters,
| leaving the little girl with her mother; and
giving the mother about two thousand dol
| lals but the former, Mrs. RinehaIt denied
knowledge OF such an agreement, ana plher
witnesses showed her to have been suffering
an impairment of mind at the time OF Its al
legged making, thus invalidating and making
vodable the agreement, If ever made and
as to the money paid, 1t was answered that
| Rineha ri had got more money from her when
he married her than he paid back under the
alleged agreement, and therefore, IN right,
| there was, no consideration to support the
contract if this agreement was upheld as
valid, then the plainthf'e case failed. But
| there was another view which left the plaint-
| iff in an equally bad plight. 1t was contended
by counsel for Mr.. Rlnehart, and concurred
\ ..ls.a.s. N.sfl lraN rtfl fl.A4