Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-10-13
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.


In the case of B. w. Harnish VS.. Wm
Mcpherson. the defence was that Nc
Pherson did not make any contract will
the plaintiff ; an order which smith tool
to Harnish, purpoitiny to ha come from
Mcpherson, was a fOrger: !; and the de
fence claimed that they WEI e not liable for
the debts which Smith made The jury
found in favor of the plaintiff for s247.50
Mary A. Bartholomew and David B.
bartholomew, for the use of said Mary A.
bartholomew, VS.. the Lancaster l. Read
ing narrow gauge railroad company, action
for damages. The plaintiffs live in the
southern part of this city, and the defend
ants have constructed a siding from Their
railroad line to Peacock s. Thomas's fur.
mace, passing over over their land, render
ing portion of it useless. After the jury
were sworn they visited the premises and
upon their return the hea!iu. Of testimony
began.
IsefOrs Judge Patterson.
Judge Patterson was in court this morn
ing and tine case taken up by him in the
lower room was that of David S. Wilmer
VS.. Michael Batdolf. The defendant is
the father in law of the plaintiff, who in
1870 lived in Canlpbcllstown. Lebanon
county. The old man bought lot of
farming utensils from Wilmer in april of
that year, giving prOmissory note for $3.50
on which he made payments up to 1878 when
there remained a balance of S632. Some
time during that year, the plaintiff claims,
the defendant asked him to allow him to
look at the note. 1t was handed to linn,
but hc would not return it. The note was
produced upon the plaintiff demanding it,
and was offered in evidence.
u
note, on which he made payments, and
claims that he would have paid all had
demand been made. In August, 1873 he
learned through his wife that the plaintiff,
who is married to one of his daughters,
had seduced another, who was then under
the age of 1G years. He Immediately sent
for the plaintiff, telling him to come to
his house and t. bring with him the note
and his wife. Witmcr came and when
they were all seated in the room defendant
asked witness il the story was true he
replied that 1t was aud told him not to al
low the affair to become public it is
alleged that he then gave up tho note to
defendant (who Lad told him that he i'll
tended to prosecute HIM to settle the mat.
ter and keep the scandal quiet. The de-
fendant did not again hear anything OF the
note until the suit was brought in 1878,
after the statute Of limitation prevented
him from bringing suit for adultery
against Wilmer. On trial
sanier> the Homicide.
Postmaster Marshall has received two
letters making inquiries about Edward
Sanders now confined in our Jail on charge
of numbering Mary Seymour, III John
street, this city. The first letter is from
Mrs. Sanders, i'll New York, who writes
that her son Edward Sanders left New
York more than u year ago for Chicago,
since which time she has heard nothing of
him. and she feared he might be the San
ders now in our county Jail. Tie other
letter is from Mr. A. Sanders, of New
ark, N. D., who states that his son Ed
ward went West a couple of years ago.
and has not since been heard from. Post
master Marshall at once wrote to Mr.. and
Mrs. Sanders that TIER Edward was not
the Edward now in our Jail. Edward, the
woman killer is n Lancasterian, and his
father resides in this city.