Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-10-19
COURT OF QUARTEK SESSIONS.


COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS.
Proceedings OF tho Adjourned Term.
Tuesday Afternoon-In the cases o
Samuel E. Myers and Frederick Koch
supervisors of Rapho township, charged
with neglect Of duty. A not. pres wa
entered, the road complained of havin.
been repaired.
Com'th VS.. Mary and Matthias Manhars,
felonious assault and battery. The pose
cutor was Heny Hershey. The evidence
showed that in November last the
defendant kept saloon in the
borough Of Columbia. On the eth
of tho month Hershey with a
friend went into the saloon. He was stand.
ing at the bar when Manhart asked him il
he was going to pay for some beer. He
replied. What are You going to do about
it if I don't?' Manhart Immediately
picked up beer mallet and struck
Hershey above the eye, cutting him very
badly. Mrs. Manhart then picked up an
iron poker and struck him on the back of
the head, cutting him there also.
The defense was that Hershey and Ed
Sanders camo into the hotel together They
got two glasses of beer which they refused
to pay for, and Hershey began to "ban-
ter MaEhart to fight. The latter ordered
him out of the saloon several times, but
he refused to go and continued talking
loud, using vulgar language. Manhart
finally struck Hershey with mallet.
About this time Mrs. Manhart ran in and
ordered Hershey out. He still per sisted
in remaining, and she struck him with the
poker. Both defendants claimed that they
We're afraid of the men whom they be-
lieved to be desperate characters.
In the case of VIM. Diveler and Elias
Divc!er, charged with assault and battery,
the jury rendered verdict of not guilty,
with the defendants to pay nine tenths and
John Ehring to pay one tenth of the
costs.
Com'th VS.. \. Is. Potter. The evidence
for the prosecution showed that some time
last spring the defendant went to the
hardware store of Isaac Diller, in this city,
and and asked Mr.. Diller to give him
credit for stove. He told him that he
was travelling for Harrison Bros. & Co.,
of Philadelphia. He called several times at
the store, and finally Mr.. DilIcr agreed to
give him the. stove, on which he
paid small sum. 1t was afterwards as
certained that the man had nothing to do
with the firm of Harrison Bros. & Co.,
and when he was arrested he admitted
that he had lied, and said that he was
guilty and wanted to settle the matter.
About this time Potter (who by the
way had but recently moved to this
city from the wcst) went 10 d. S. Bursks
grocery store and wanted credit. He said
he was travelling as agent for tho firm OF
L. H. Nevin & Co., of Pittsburs, and he
expected remittance in a couple of days.
He obtained several dollars worth of goods.
Mr.. Bursk afterwards learned that he was
not Nevin Il Co.'S agent. When arrested
he said he had done wrong and admitted
everything.
G. F. Nevin, of I. II. Nevin & Co., was
called. He testified that their tirm had
engaged Potter as an agent in April last
ho was to travel in the states of Missouri,
Kansas and Nebraska only, and was given
paper authorizing him to do business
there the same day he received the posi-
tion he left Pittsburgh for the East and
did not go West at all the firm at once
published notice in the st. Louis papers
informing the public that Potter was not
their agent, as he was discharged an hour
after he was employed; they did not
notify him as they did not know where he
was no agent of theirs and had no reason
to expect a remittance.
Wednesday Morning.-In the case OF
charged with felOnious assault and battery,
the jury rendered verdict of - not guilty
but to pay COSTS" The counsel for tho
defense Immediately asked for rule to
show cause why the portion of the verdict
nOcin orcfc ,o 1ncn .l,>
not be stricken off Us in case Of felony
defendant can not be compelled topay cost,
and the verdict must either be "guilty"
or " not guilty." without any reference to
costs. The matter will be argued in ar
gument court.
COm'th VS.. A. B. Potter, false pretens,.
The defense in this case was that Potter
acted in good faith with these parties he
explained his whole position to them he
had always intended to pay for the goods
and would have done SO he paid Mr.. Dill
ler s. on the stove. At that time he had
contract with Mr. Nevin for the states
named and had verbal contract with
him to sell goods in this city. He did at
tempt to sell here. but was not successful;
he knew nothing of his contract with the
firm being rcscinded !; he told Mr.. Bursk
that he expected money from the West,
but did not say from whom he may have
said at the alderman's Office. while un-
der excitement, that he would plead
guilty.
The accused Oh ncrOsS-examinatiOn stated
that he had written letter (Which was
produced) to Nevin & Co., telling them
that lie had called upon tho firm of
Smith & Willis in this city to sell item
goods. Upon being asked the question
he did not know that 10 such
firm existed in this city, he replied NO"
The jury rendered verdicts Of guilty. A
motion i'll arrest of judgment and for new
trial was Immediately made by 3. F.
Davis, esq.,, the defendant S counsel. Sen
tence was therefore deferred.
COm'th VS.. John 3. Slough, Of this city.
assault and battery. The prosecutor was
6. NJ. Zahm, and the evidence showed that
On the 10th of March lie went into the
hotel of defendant to sec a mau named
VIM. RexrOth, who had committed theft
1t his place. There was crowd at the
lOtel and Mr.. Zahm walked in. Rexroth
vas sitting in the barroom on chair very
Trunk and the prosecutor placed his hand
N his shoulder and told him to 20 along
he defendant said he could not take the |
nan away withOuts warrant; he caught |!
lold of him and twice pushed him violent
y away. Zahm had told the defendant |
What the man had done before he went |
n police officer had attempted to take |
he man and MIR. Slough prevented because }