The New Bloomfield, Pa. times. (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1877-188?, 1881-11-08


good hotel Mt Marysvllle, charges moderate,
attention first class, meals tip top, whisky
warranted not TO freeze,- his eagle glance
over that cruel charge, containing speciflca-
tlons more or less explicit but all directed
against his virtue, IL Is but faint expression
OF his feelings to say that he swelled with in
dlgnatlon. With that allegation undlsproved
what remained In lie worth living for With
That allegation staring him In the face, look
Ing at him from his walls, watching him from
The ceiling above his head, gazing at him from
the plates off which he ate, peering from the
tumbler us he takes his medicine at the bar,
what, my countrymen, under such clrcum-
stances, Is good health, and appetite, and
troops of friends, aud freedom from malaria
With that allegation broadcast to the world,
believed, accepted as true, did not daylight
become darkness and pleasure pain, and did
anything remain to be done except to search
out and find the cruel allgatorl should
think not. And so he begins his search, and
soon he finds the defendant, and arrests her
and brings her into court, and tries her for
writing that letter, and proves her declaration
that she threatened to write such letter, and
shows it to be In her handwriting, and estab-
fishes the fact that he discharged her from his
employ and thus gave her motive to iujure
him In this way, and proves the publication of
the letter by its deposit In the mail and Its re-
ceipt By the one to whom 1t was addressed, and
rests. And then, l regret to say, a change
COll6S ONtI blb blNlb Ol MS uTShul, dnu bub
case takes peculiar turn, so to speak, for the
defendant takes the stand and swears that she
never wrote the letter and never saw it written
nor directed it to be written, that she never said
she meant to write 1t, or to write anything like
1t, that she never was discharged by Faik, that
the letter was not in her handwriting and that
she knows nothing at all about IL. And so the
jury do retire to consult upon this strange and
truly rural state of things, and do in due time
come into court saying "We find the defend
ant not guilty but direct her to pay one-third of
the costs.' Selah But 1t is to be fully un-
derstood that Mr.. Falk is properly avenged
and let no man say that his Innocence and vir-
tue have not been amply vindcated. Seibert
aud Wallis, for Com. McAllister and Ben. Z.
McIntire, for defendant.
Com. VS.. William Anderson, charged with
assault aud battery upon John s. Bituer, con-
stable, Landlsburg. This fracas took
place at Sunday School Celebration, in the
woods near Landisburg last summer, to which
the defendent had gone for fun. While searching
for amusement there, he fell into the hands of
the constable who attempted to hold him under
arrest for his bad behavior and noisy conduct,
but he resisted the Constable so vigorously,
and struck him and fought him off so well,
that the constable. was obliged to let him go,
and seek his own home for another shirt and
repairs generally.-The law, however, was
bit stronger than the constable, and the young
gentleman was subsequently arrested and put
to jail, from which he was bailed out to answer
at court The case was stubbornly contested
by the defendant in court. The jury found
the defendant guilty in manner and form as he
stood indicted. The court sentenced him to
pay fine of 50 90 the costs of prosecution, and
to stand committed. He went to Jail. Wallis,
for Com. seibert, for defendant.
Com. VS.. DR.. John l.. Brubaker, charged
with stealing a note for $4,000 from |. lay
lor Mitchell, of Greenwood township The
fna 20 II, stc Co.. al
was shown by evidence that admitted of no
contradiction that some speculative insur.
ance workers procured different policies of
insurance on the life of old Mr. Isaac Mitch
ell, couple of weeks before he died that
one policy of 81 900 was held by DR.. John
l.. Brubaker, who was the medical examiner
who certified to the Insurance company that
Mr.. Mitchell was fit subject to be insured {;
that when the old gentleman died and the
money came to be paid by the company, L.
Taylor Mitchell. his son, lodged a cGceat, or
objection, with the company against the pay
ment of the money to the Doctor that the
Doctor, to get rid of that impediment went
to l. Taylor Mitchell's house on the night of
June 3lst last, in company with Captain
Chas. Wright, and proposed to pay l. Taylor
Mitchell u sum of money to be agreed upon
between them at that time to withdraw his
cdcedt, or objection, so that the Doctor could
draw the money that it was then ard there
to |, Taylor Mitchell the cGooat would be
withdrawn that the Doctor then paid down
1870 in cash and gave his note for $4,000,
payable when he drew the money from the
company, and agreed to pay the 80 cents
necessary to make up the l25.00 in day or
two, and l. Taylor Mitchell executed re-
lease which the Doctor took away with him (;
that few days afterwards the Doctor drew
S39S.0O from the company; that on the 9th,
of June, |. Taylor Mitchell went to the Doc
tors office and demanded the payment of the
$4,000 note that the Doctor took the note
from Mitchell's knee and put it in his pocket
and refused to pay or to give the note back !;
and that the note has ever since been in the
Doctors custody and possession. From
these facts the jury were asked by the COM
monwealth to decide that the Doctor stole
that note. But the defendant testified that
when lie gave the note his understanding of
the agreement was that it was only to be paid
provided that lie got $500 from the insurance
company, and he having only got 1898 the
note was not rightfully the property of Mitch
ell but belonged to the Doctor, and that,
therefore, he had right to take it from
Mitchell and keep it without paying the s45
and was guilty Of no crime in so doing
The question for the jury was simply,
What was the design of the Doctor when lie
took the note? Did he intend to deprive
Mitchell of it so as to keep him from recoy-
ering the $4,000 or did he really believe when
lie took it that 1t was his property and not
Mitchell's? The jury found the de-
fendant not guilty. Although the case grew
out of insurance, and speculative insurance
men were present in large numbers, yet the
trial did not involve any Insurance questions,
and the decision of the jury, consequently,
did not decide anything pertaining to insur-
ance. The only question being one of larce-
ny and not of Insurance, the contest being
whether or not the Doctor stole certain
note, the verdict of the jury finding the de-
fendant not guilty, settles nothing with re-
spect to the legality or illegality, the crimi-
nalty or the legitimacy of speculative. life
insurance. But the end is not yet, and the