Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-01-27
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.



Benjamin D. Mayer VS.. Henry Nef. Ac.
ton to recover damages for trespass. The
plaintiff and defendant are millers and
farmers and both own mills, which are on
the Pequea creek. Mr.. Mayors farm is
partly in Strasburg and partly in West
Lampeter township. Mr.. Neff's mill is
about mile and a quarter farther down
the stream than that of Mayer. The testi-
mony for the plaintiff showed that
between the years 1874 and 1878, the de-
fendant has raised the breast of his dam
SO muci above its old height, that the
level Of the creek between the mills is
filled to such All extent as to reduce the
fall from plaintiffs head race nearly one
foot. So much back or dead water is Gre
the course of the outflow from it, and to
bine wheels, which are used in the rum
raising Of this dam breast by the defend
ants, as is alleged. The plaintiff brings this
action to recover damages which he claims
to have suffered.
This the burden of plaintiffs case and
they called owes 80 witnesses to prove it.
They had not yet closed their testimony
"bCh OAC SouiC Y JOu1hOO ~ AOOh.
Before Judge Patterson.
Com'th of Pennsylvania, for the use Of
w. d. Weaver, A. NJ. Frantz, ct. al. VS..
David G. Steacy, Morris Cooper, Peter
Piekel and Samuel A. Higgins. In
1871, W. F. Pickel and wife, residing in
BAIT township, made an assignment and
appointed David G. Steacy the assignee.
Steacy gave bond in the sum of 81, 900,
xr1,;o n, %,u: <1,o Df
inventory ofthe estate, and the other named
faithful performance of his duty in COM
sold the estate of the assignor and then
were appointed, who, after having had the
amendments to the account, finally in 1873,
reported that they found in the hands Of
tie assignee the sum of 2,59487, which
plaintiffs entitled thereto. This sum the
over by Steacy. This suit is, therefore,
brought against Steacy and his sureties to
recover the amount. The deed of assign.
ment. bond of the assignee, the assignee's
account and the audit or's final report were
II
ID. G. Steacy was called and testified
that since the final report of the auditors,
he has paid to none of tho creditors the
amounts distributed to them.
At the close Of the plaintiffs testimony
the defense proposed to show that at the
time the first report was made by the aud
itors Stcacy was solvent and in good cir
cumstances, in addition to being entitled
to share of 81, 600 in his deceased fathers
estate by the litigation of some Of the
present plaintiffs creditors and their
eventual indulgence to Steacy, they waived
their right to recover from his SuretieS
who cannot now be held liable, as they
were never notified of this extension of
timc i'll the settlement of his liabilities as
VIM. F. Pickel's assignee.
The plaintiffs objected to this, as they
contended that as the sureties of Steacy
had not taken exceptions to the report Of
the final distribution of the auditors, on
which the decree by the confirmation of
the court had gone before the world, and
that their only defense could now be that
they have paid the money.
The argument of the counsel had not
concluded when court adjourned.
This afternoon the court refused to ad-
NIT the testimony of the defense, and the
jury were instructed to find in favor of the
plaintiffs for the penalty of the bond, viz
Sl4, 1854, and to assess the damages III
this action at So, SOO.14. This verdict was
by the jury.
Jurors Discharged.
All the jurors who were not sworn i'll
the two above cases were discharged, as
there arc no other cases for trial during
the week.