Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-02-28
COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS.
The Adjourned Term.

Monday Afternoon.-Com'th VS.. Frank
Bryson assault and battery with intent to
ravish. Mrs. Mary Kunkle, residing in
Paradise township, testified that the de.
fendart came to her house On December
1G. 1877, and three times assaulted her,
attempting to remove her clothing /; she
made Outcries which were not heard.
The witness admitted having offered to
settle the case. Other witnesses testified
what the defendant swore to at the
squire's Office. The commonwealth
abandoned the charge OF attempting to
commit rape.
The defense was that Bryson did not
make any assault and the woman is not
worthy OF belief. The jury convicted the
defendant of simple assault sentenced to
pay Il fine Of S. and costs.
The Gundaker case.
Tuesday Xorning-This morning the
jury was sworn in the case of com'th vs..
Emanuel Gundaker, who was charged with
shooting Edward Cole. After some talk
between counsel J. Hay Brown, esq.,, for
the defense, arose and made q statement
to the court he said that his client would
now withdraw his plea of not guilty and
enter one of guilty, as he thought it use
less to fight the case any longer, as he is
technically guilty and he now throws him.
self upon the merciful consideration Of tie
court. In regard to the offence, counsel
said that defendant at tho time of the
shooting had yielded to the intirmities of
human nature, being stung to madness by
the conviction and belief that the prose-
cutor had invaded his home, alienated the
affections Of his wife, estranging his
family from him, making him homeless,
and in an unguarded moment had COM
mitted the otfense claimed.
Mr. Reynolds, associate counsel for the
commonwealth, stated that there was no
foundation for the belief of the defendant
at the time of the shooting.
The court said they would postpone the
sentence until Saturday morning, and the
| prisoner was committed to prison.
\ verdict of not guilty was taken i'll the
| case against the same defendant charging
! him with carrying concealed weapons.
Com'th VS.. Emma Harmon, larceny.
The prosecutrix was Bridget O'Neil, who
resides in Safe Harbor. She testified that
the defendant was working for her in De-
| ceriber last for two days, and after she
left the following articles We're found to
| he missing half dozen spoons, three gold
| rings, gloves, silk handkerchief and wear
/ lht, dppiICl Was NIlCSSCu
and she admitted that she stole the arti-
| cles. The rings were returned by her in
letter to Mrs. O'Neil.
The defense was that upon the occasion
of the larceny Mrs. O'Neil bought some
| whisky, of which the defendant drank and
became intoxicated she then took the
articles, but after she left Mrs. O'Neil's
she thought she had done wrong and
in several days she returned the rings by
letter, and Mrs. O'Neil afterward came
after the other things, which were given
her by defendants mother. Witnesses
We're called to testify to the defendants S
honesty.
Mrs. O'Ncil denied that she gave the
cir! anything except a spoonful of liquor,
which she used for cooking. The jury rem
dereda verdict of guilty, with recommen-
dation Of mercy to the court. Sentenced
| to two months Imprisonment
In the case Of Com'th VS.. William +.
Murphy, charged with assault and battery,
4 verdict of not guilty, with county for
costs, was taken, as it appeared that the
defendant accompanied an officer to assist
in arresting somo boys, and it was then
when it was alleged he made an assault
on one named Taggart. 1t appeared that
he had done nothing except what he had
q ri.rbt dc