Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-08-29
A Distinction without . Difference.
Philadelphia Press.
It is not, of course, true that every ma
in favor of assessments is thief !; bu
every thief is in favor Of assessments.
IN COUk1
Tno First WeOk Of Common Pleas.
BEFORE JUDGE LIVINGSTON.

Tne First Wees Of Common Plese.
BEFORE JUDGE LIVINGSTON.
The first case attached was that OF
Amanda Funk vs. Jacob Eshelman. This
was an action to recover for wages, and 1t
came into court on an appeal from the
judgment of Alderman Spurrier. TIE
plaintiff alleged that she went to live With
the defendant. who is farmer and resides
at Creswell, Manor township, on April
Esd, 1877, when she was II years of age.
She did all the house work during that
time and besides worked in the garden.
tobacco patch and fields and whitewashed
the fences. She received no pay for this
work and now sues to recover. The
term she was to receive set of furniture,
called to show that the plaintiff bad done
the work claimed.
The defense was that the girl was
ant, with whom she lived for four years.
She was to receive her board and clothing
and set of furniture, and ON those condi-
tions was taken, as her mother was poor. 1t
wasclaimed that the girl was tollearn the art
of keeping house. Sho was very slow to
learn, but the defendant did the best she
could with her. She was always supplied
with clothing and board and at tho end OF
term was offered the furniture which she
refused to take, saying she had no place for
not do the work alleged.
The defense offered an indenture which
was made between the mother of plaintiff
AhA lAEn r. ~ AI~A
the girl had never ratified it and it was not
admitted in evidence. The jury rendered
verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $2O6.
In the case Of Amos Kirchner VS.. the
county of Lancaster, issue to ascertain the
amount of damages sustained by the
plaintiff by reason of the extension OF
Green street, this city, judgment was en-
tered in favor of tho plaintiff for $50 and
costs.
In the case of John Free vs.. the county
of Lancaster, which is ON the list for next
week, and which is also q Green street
damage case, judgment was entered in
favor of the plaintiff for $40 and costs.
BEFORE JUDGE PATTERsON.
Drs. BENJAMIN s. and F. A. Muhlenberg
surviving executors of DR.. Frederick A.
Muhlenberg, late of Lancaster city, de-
ceased, VS.. Catherine and Jacob Drucken-
miller-action Of ejectment to recover pos
session of a small piece of land which the
plaintiffs allege is now wr0ngfully held in
possession by the defendants, tho title
being, as the plaintiffs claim, in them.
The property in dispute is that portion
used as the western terminus of the Lam
caster s. New Holland turnpike, but which
was recently declared vacated by a survey
Of the city. The plaintiff showed that in the
year 1921 DR.. F. A. Muhlenbcrg purchased
of the trustees of Samuel G. Ofner a
tract of land that in 1889 the city, under
an act of Assembly, took possession of as
a portion of the New Holland turnpike at
its western terminus. for the purpose of
erecting that part Of the railroad, now
under the Lime street bridge. They
decided to the turnpike company tract of
land that had been granted to tho
city by Or. F. A. Muhlenberg, situated
on the north bank of the railroad,
and extending back until it again Joined
tho turnpike that DR.. F. A. Muhlcnberg
had never parted with the fec simple Of
the tract and upon its vacation by the city
under the new plan it (this land in ques-
tiOn) reverted to the estate of DIR. F. A.
Muhlenberg, and that as the executors of
his estate tho plaintiffs now claim it, al.
though it has been enclosed and taken pos
session of by the defendants who reside on
ground just north and adjoining the track.
This morning tho defense asked for a
non-suit on the ground that the defendant
had failed to show exclusive title to it,
and offered to show that in 1887, by sale
to Jacob Griel from DR.. Muhlenberg of
the whole tract, the conveyance expressly
set forth that there was reserved for it the
portion now in question which the deed
recited as 80 much as tho city had pur-
chased and that therefore the title could
not be in the plaintiffs. Jurors were with
drawn and a nOn-suit granted. A motion
was made to strike off the nOn-suit.