The New Bloomfield, Pa. times. (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1877-188?, 1881-01-11
THE CIVIL TRIAL LIST.

town AGRICULTURAL Implement Manufacturing
Go, VS.. W u. Minich. (lnterpleadsr) The
facts seemed TO be that the Alphabet Com
pany left q machine OF their manufacture
called clover seed huller with Mr. Gabriel
Kline of IOysvlle on trial, with the agree
ment that he should pay for II IL the machine
suited him aud If 1t did not suit him they
would take II back. Now this was sdto In
law, provided there was nothing further to be
done except to pay for the machine or 1t
might be a bdiIinent or simple use OF anotlerS'
property for the time being II there was any
thing further TO be done to change the title to
the machine and just which II was nobody
except u Jury could iud out But while the
machine was in the possession Of Mr.. Kline
writ of execution was levied ON 1t by w. ii.
MinIch, q creditor of Kline, and the nachine
was seized as the property of Kline, and this
suit was brought to try the question OF whose
property 1t was-if It was kline's then Min
ich's execution would hold it and IL could be
sold for kine's debt II, on the other hand,
it was the Company's, then Mr.. Minlch could
not hold IT, and he would be defeated In this
action. The jury found for the plalntilf. =
Sponsler and Markell for plaintiff; Barnett
and Mclntre for the defendant
Clara d. Stitzell VS.. Jonathan SandersOn,
action on the case for damages The parties
were from New Germantown, and the wrong
complained of was, that Sanderson, u cOnsta.
ble permitted man named Kenny Drummy
to escape after having arrested him on war
TaUV Ior IOIllCUllOll anu OUSlulUN Nb Ille Ill
stance of the plaintiff The proof showed
that SandersOn went to Franklin county arm
cd with warrant for Drummy, had the war
rant backed by Justice there and arrested
Drummy, and then permitted him TO go ut
large alone to hunt ball. and Drunmy went
but whether Ii abandoned the search for bail,
or is looking for bail yet. lies specially in the
personal knowledge of Mr.. Drummy who has
never returned to tell how that matter stands.
The case ended on point of law and the
court ordered compulsory nOnsuit.-SpOns-
ler and Wallis for plaintiff, and Seibert for
defendant.
Commonwealth ca rel John Usaw vs.. Jacob
Kinert, an appeal from Justice Fem of
Marysviile, who had fined the defendant $50
for blaSphemy under the profanity act. The
offense took place OH the Sth day of July, 1879,
on the farm of the defendant while he wasin
the field loading shocks of grain on q wagon,
the Tetdt0r MIR. John Usaw passing along the
public road at the time and hearing the oatls
uttered. Mr.. Usaw described Mr.. Kinert's
manner of swearing TO have been unexcep.
tionable III point of eXpertness, proficiency
and speed, but truly horrible for any one of
sensitive nerves and moral character to be
obliged to listen to and hear, Mr.. Usaw,
whose feelings were shocked by the occur
Ience, thought it his duty to prosecute Mr..
Kinert, in the interests of good morals and
decency, and the jury found the defendant
guilty of sweating one oath of the higher
priced kind, .. 6. siXty-seven cent oath,
which Mr.. Kinert duly settled for, paid the
costs of the suit and went home. Wallis for
Relator Usaw, and Barnett for Defendant
Kinert.
Kate Hollenbaugh VS.. S. l.. Holenbaugh,
appeal iron Judgment before Justice of the
Peace for the sum of SO. The appellant did
not put in an appearance when the case was
called, and, to save COSTS his counsel confess
ed Judgment for the debt, with interest, total
95.-Sponsler for plaintiff; Barnett Tor
defendant
Jacob NTiley VS.. w. w. Frymirc, j. A.
Ensminger and Alex. Hartman. This was
mn action on q note for $3.50 given by the de-
PENDANTS to the plaintiff in 1877 for the right
TO cut timber on the plaintiffs land in Rye
township, Frymer and Ensminger being
principals in the note and Hartman surety
The defense was that the consideration for
which the note was given had failed, and,
consequently, the defendants owed the plain.
tiff nothing. The difficulty i'm this case was
to determine what the contract was for
which the note was given, the plaintiff con-
tending it was for the right to cut the pine
and fallen timber only and the defendants
insisting that it included all the timber on the
tract, chestnut, blackjack and other as well
rs the pine. That the parties understood the
contract differently was evidenced by the fact
that after the contract was made the defend
ants went on cutting all kinds of timber ac-
cording to their view of their rights, and the
plaintiff stopped them and insisted that they
had a right to cut only the pine according to
his idea of their rights. Another compiica-
ton existed. The surety on the note averred
that he wasn't liable because when he signed
the note he was drunk. There was testlmo-
ny to the fact that Mr.. Hartman was welded
to his cups and indulged in protracted sprees
generally along about that time-though at
present he is free from the vice-and that at
such times he didn't know what he was
doing Indeed so clear was Mr.. Hartman
upon this point by his own testimony that his
evidence forcbly recalls the story Of the man
who said, 'Yesh, Pm drunk, but eff Pm
drunk how'm shober 'nougn to know that
I'm drunk? Zis shing ish gettin too diff
cult fur me-" There was still another troub-
lie. The note was signed on Sunday by
Frymre and Ensmnger and alleged to be
void on that account. The testimony covered
wide field. Much of the proof of the de-
Tense was devoted to showing the value of
The timber on the tract, especially of the pine
itself, in order to establish the correctness of
their view of what the contract was, for If the
pine and fallen timber alone was cOmpara-
lively of no value-as they showed it was
then the presumption would be strong that
they did not agree to give $3.50 for 1t; but
that their contract was for all the timber on
the tract, etc. The Court, in a charge of
singular clearness and power, greatly lessen
,od the labors of the jury by telling them that
the only thing for them to determine was
WhaV was Ine cohtractY III IT was what the
plaintiff alleged, then they would find for the
plaintiff for the face of the note with interest;
If itwas what the defendants believed it to be,
then they should find for the defendants !;
that it did not matter that the note was sign.
ed on Sunday because the contract was not
made ON Sunday and the note was simply ev-
idence OF the contract, that Mr.. Hartman
had not been proven to have been drunk at
the very time when he signed the note, and
therefore must be presumed to have been
sober and that the plaintiff was entitled to
receive all or nothing as the jury might find
his version or the defendants version of the
contract to be the true one. The iury found
Cor the defendants Snnnsler and Snnnslnr