Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-08-23
COURT Or COMMON PLEAS.
Before Judge Livingston


In tho case of Edward II. Kauff.
man VS.. Joshua McComsey, action Oh q
promissory note for $3.50, a verdict was
taken in favor of the plaintiff for s3l0.S1.
Com'th of Pennsylvania for the use Of
Lewis S. Hartman, ct IT,. VS.. John Gerz
and II. Drachbar, action on :: bOnd, YER
dict was taken in favor of the plaintiffs
for So, 400 and the damages of L. d. North,
auditor, were assessed Sl15.
Mary Armstead VS.. y. X. Wilmer and
Emlen Franklin, executors Of the will OF
Joseph Yeates Conygham, deceased. This
| is an action to recover pay for services
rendered the deceased. In the year 1871
the plaintiff engaged herself as house.
keeper for the deceased ; she did al! the
work in the house, and in short time
some relatives of Mr.. Conygham, who had
been living with him, left. 1t then
became necessary for the plaintiff
to take care of him. The testimony
showed that he was almost blind, was
very feeble and required great attention.
The plaintiff was compelled to nurse him
and often would have to go for doctor
several times in one night. The work was
very hard and several times she intended
to leave, but Mr. Conyngham begged her
that she was we'll provided for. He died in
March, 1880, and when the will was read
it was found that no provision was made
for the plaintiff who. therefore, brought
this suit.
The defense called A. r. Wilmer, one
Of the executors, who testified that shortly
after Mr. Conynoham's death he asked
plaintiff whether there was anything due
her she replied that there was four Or
five weeks wages due her lie paid her
$40 and took her receipt in full for all
claims against the estate. The witness,
on cross examinat ion, admitted that the
plaintiff had a claim ior nursing. Other
witnesses testified that plaintiff admitted
that she had been paid FOR her services
On trial. This case was attached last
April, but was continued, owing to the
illness Of Col. Amweg, an important wit
ness.-!tEP.l
Before JnGee Patterson.
Constantine Rutgers vs.. Samuel Diller
This was action to recover $40. Tie
plaintiffs testimony showed that in 1876
he bought Il gray horse from the defend
ant which the latter insured to he per-
fectly quiet and sound. He gave $75 in
cash and note Cor $50. After having the
horse for :; short time he was found
to be unlike he was represented,
would frightcn at the cars and did not
suit the plaintiff, who finally traded the
animal back to the defendant for a black
horse, which was dumb and would frighten
and runaway. Plaintiff did not pay the
note and brings thus suit to recover the
amount of cash paid.
The defense is that the gray horse WAS
a good one, and just as gentle as repre-
sentcd. The plaintiff traded him to Isaac
Diller (nOt SamueD for black horse that
was a bad one; defendant never owned
the latter animal and made no trade with
Rutgers.
No evidence was taken in this case this
morning, J. l.. SteinmetZ, esq, the coun-
sci for the plaintiff, having gone to Harris
burg to see his mother, who was taken
quite i'll. She is convaiescent and Mr..
Stcinmetz returned this afternoon. The
case was resumed at half past two o'clock
this afternoon.