The New Bloomfield, Pa. times. (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1877-188?, 1881-04-19

searched the house OF the McGowans for the
stolen pork they found shovel there which
Mr. Vert Identified as the Identical shovel
which he had lost. Andrew jackson endeav-
ored TO explain from the witness box that he
bought that shovel In 1877, at Harrisburg, at
night, In q hardy store, In company with
another man, and brought II home on freight
train and that II was his shovel. But when
Andrew jackson came to be subjected to cross
examination his story didn't hang together.
Like the fabled Mermaid, II was too much
woman TO be good for fish and too much fish
TO be OF any use as woman. Indeed II was
altogether fish story. When asked where
that store was situated he couldn't tell-
He didn't know even on what street II was,
whether II was near the 9th Ward Market
house or the down town Market houses, and
the man who was with him, strange TO say,
since then had died. The Jury, consequently,
found Andrew jackson guilty In manner and
form ae he stood indicted. The wife and son
were acquitted. MCGOWAN was sentenced TO
IL months In the Eastern Penltentiary. Wallis
for Com. and McAlllster for defls.
Com. Vs. VIM. I. Williamson. Tramp. This
was the first tramp tried In this County under
the Act Of 30 April 1879, defining and punish
Ing tramps. The defendant was clearly proven
to be tramp under the meaning Of the Act
of Assembly. The defense inlerposed was
Insanity, and II was attempted to be supported
by witnesses from the jail, principally. who
testified TO his peculiar habits. One physician
only was called, aud he thought the man was
simple but couldn't say that ho didn't know
right from wrong, that being the test, In law,
TO make the defense of insanity available. The
plea OF insanity, therefore, WAS not sufficiently
supported and proven and the Jury found the
| defendant guilty. He was sentenced to years
In the Eastern Penitentary. Wallis for Com.
W. II. Sponser for deft
Com. vs. Jefferson Adams. This man was
| prosecuted for malicious mischief, In breaking
window pane In the store of Mr. Breneman,
at Newport. He plead guilty and was SEN
| fenced TO 10 days imprisonment IN the Jail.
| Wallis for Com. and Potter for def.
| Com. VS.. John Il. Campbell. Forgery. The
defendant In this case does not look the Grim
| inal which the proof showed him to be. He is
| young man of good appearance and fair In
teligence, and he ought to have strlven for
| better fate than the Penitentlary. The case
against him was clear one. He had pre-
sentcd note for $3.50, signed by himself,
and purporting to be signed by A. s. White
| kettle, to Mr.. Minlch, at Newport, for discount
representing that Mr.. Whitekettle had signed
the note as his surety, and, upon that state
ment, received 1882 from Mf. Minich on the
note. The signature of Whitekettle was a
forgery. Verdict guilty. He was sentenced TO
1 year in the Eastern Penitentiary. Wallis for
Com. W. A. and w. II. Sponser for deft.
Com. vs.. John e. Campbell. This was an
other case Of forgery against the same man.
After his success In defrauding Mr.. Minich he
turned his attention TO the Newport Deposit
Bank and forged O somewhat similar note,
with the name of Whitekettle as surety aB-
before, and tried to negotiate 1t at that bank.
Mr.. Irwin, the Cashier, suspecting 1t was
forgery, laid the note aside and requested,
Campbell to call again, and then, after he left,
made information for his arrest. He did not
call again. When the officer found him he
was preparing to take the train east, having
purchased two tickets for Harrisburg, and
checked his trunk for the same place. He was
arrested, but escaped from the constable, and
long search was required TO be made before he
was again apprehended. On account of
technical point, which perhaps II may not be
well to explain because II might encourage
forgers In their vocation, the forged note was
declared by the Court insufficient In law TO
justify a verdict of conviction, and the only
question submitted to the Jury was who should
pay the costs. The Jury brought In their ver-
dict ordering the defendant TO pay the costs.
Wallis for Com. W. A. and w. II. Sponsler
for deft.
Com. vs. Emma Duncan and Sarah Robin
son. 1t was developed In this case that women
sometimes fight as well as men, and, what Is
not so we'll known, they do 1t with vim and
vlgor that men may hope TO emulate but can
never excel. For instance, here was Woman
going along the public road TO get her sheep
out of neighbours field, when she Is set upon
by couple of alleged females who sally out,
as IL were, like knights Of old, TO maui her on
the public highway. And they struck her, and
slapped her and ''picked" her with gate pin,
until she is injured so that when she gets
home she vomits blood. The defendants ad-
mitted the assault but alleged that IL was JUS
tifable because the prosecutrlx had slandered
them, and they whipped her to make her take
back the slander. This, however, was not
entirely "according to law" for the law has
never been that one dare strike another because
of words uttered however slanderous and vile /,
but on the contrary the law Furnishes him who
strikes In all cases Whatsoever except in self
defense. The Jury found the defendants guilty.
| lie for t0nn mr.
Com. VS.. Caroline Sheeffer. In this case the
prosecutor, David Mcclellan Kerr, complained
that the woman had whipped him-and he
proved 1t too. That such fact should go on
record is proper and just. The popular i'm
preston is that women are angels and won't
fight. IL is mistake. They ain't and they
will. For the correctness of this position /
appeal to married men generally and to the
prosecutor in this case. That the engagement
was severe and disastrous and the battle
ground torn up as though ploughed by the
tusks of angry elephants l will not allege-
Perhaps the genteman's retreat-for he did
retreat-prevented such a horrible state OF
things. But that the trdcGs was interesting
to the spectators-whlle 1t lasted. and had its
proper weight upon the mind-as well as the
body-of the prosecutor the proof in the cause
abundantly attests. The verdict of the Jury
was guilty. Sponsler and Wallis for Com.
Barnett and W. H. Sponsler for deft.
Com. VS.. David Kerr. Assault and Battery.
The stroke was kick in the stomach of the
prosecutrix, Caroline Sheaffer, who was the
defendant in the previous case. The story is
too long to tell rightly, and therefore perhaps
1t is best not told at all. Suffice it to say that
the Castle of Mrs Shaeffer was besieged by the
defendant and others, aud forcible admission
sought to be gained, the defendant trying to
enter by the window where the proseeutrix
stood guard with club. In the melee the club
played about the legs of the defendant too
warmly for his immediate comfort and he
relieved the DFeesure bv the simple eXpedient