Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-02-08
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Before Judge Livingston.

Before Judge Livingston.
In the case of the Hanover Junction s.
SusQuehanna railroad company VS.. Span
gler & Rich the plaintiff suffered non
suit.
E. X. Smith, trustee Of and for the sols
and separate use Of AMMO N. c. Hinkle
VS.. Franklin Hinkie. \ verdict was taken
i'll this case in favor of the plaintiff for
s1s. .933.3:. 933 ;:,
E. X. Smith. in trust to and for the sole
use and benefit of Annie NJ. {. Hinkle VS..
Franklin Hinkle. Verdict taken for
plaintiff for sl,S4'.
in the case Of Samuel Truscott, guar
dian of the minor children of Charles
Pant!e, deceased, VS.. Clara r. Shreiner.
surviving cXecutrix OF Philip Shrcincr, de-
ceased, Judgment was entered in favor Of
the plaintiff for s1,121.
In another case, between the Same
parties Judgment was entered in favor Of
the plaintiff for Sl,111.
Mary Ann krcider. by her next friend,
David Cramer,vs. Amos kreider. subpoena
for divorce. The parties to this suit
We're married in 1871. The plaintiff brings
this suit to procure divorce from her
husband. the defendant. The parties were
residents OF PeIuca township, wher& they
lived together. and the defendant yet re-
sides there. The plaintiff alleges that she
was badly treated by, her husband; when
she married him they went to live in the
home occupied by his parents; she was
there badly treated by her mOther-in-la law
as we'll as her husband the latter did not
wish her to attend clRlrch; she was COM
PEELED to do work Oh tho farm, and to do
other work from carly in the morning
until late 1T night: the defendant threat
ened to han. and shoot himself, and in
other ways SO worried her that her
health was injured; she left home Onco
for three weeks but went back when her
husband promised to do better; ho did not
and she thenleft him. and now sues for i
divorce.
The defense showed that the parties
were married when the plaintiff was liv-
ing with defendants folks. She understood
her duties, but it is claimed that after tho
marriage the failed to perform them, but
was in the habit of running to churcl,
night and day ;tiefenGant did not object to
her going to church, but did not think she
should so SO often a; he was always kind
and aifectiorate husband and provided
well for the family hc did take rope ut
one time, but it was not with any inten-
done by the plaintiff she did of her own ac-
cord. as defendant did not compel her to
do So defendants mother lived in tho
house with them, as she had right to do
under hcr..husGand' $ will she was notcrO
to plaintiff, but enlcavorcd to teach her
the plaintiff became angry ut this and
Guarreled ut times with her. On trial
I:cfsro Judge Patterson.
M:
for damages The parties to the suit
live Oh adjoining farms IN LeacOck town
ship, which were formerly owned by BROTH
ers. Il stream Of water run from spring
through the land nf the defendant into
that OF plaintiff. The latter claims that
he has right to tie use of this water for
four days ont of each week for the purpose
of flooding his meadow through which it
runs. 1t was decided in our courts in
1876 that he had that right and it was sns-
tanned by the supreme court. The plain
tiff alleges, however, that they
have not received their share OF
water, and they she to recover $1,000
damages alleged to have been sustained by
them between between December 1, 1877
and December 4, 1879. They say that
after the case was settled, for Il time they
received their supply of water and had q
good first crop Of hay in 1878. The
second crop was very poor, and 80 were
both OF 1879, because they were deprived
OF their supply of water by the defendant,
vino at times would place Instructions in
the water channel and wOulin not not allow
it to run over the lands Of tho plaintiff;
when the latter demanded these rights tho
son OF the defendant, who lives OH his
farm, would get angry.
The defense is that they have always
given the plaintiff his full supply or
water and all that lie was entitled to they
have never damned up the water nor OBJ
structed its flow !; at times the spring is
almost dry and scarcely any water runs in
the stream. That was the case in 1879, and
that was the reason Of the failure Of plain.
tiTsshay crop; defendant admitted the
plaintiffs right to the water and claims that
he has always given him it q; Inc always
told his son to give them their share. On
trial.