Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-12-13
THE QUARTER SESSIONS.
TIE DkcEMsEE ADJOUE.ED Tern

LII W. nt1A LII oUNC1O2NOs
The Hlariettn - Registers - Lrbel suit-y:,.
Editor Wins--:I False Pretense Case
That Did Not Fan Out Well.
Tuesday afteraoon-COIn' th VS.. Percy
&. Shock, libel. The defense offered to
prove that he had received information
from . number Of persons, besides those
lie mentioned, and whose names he could
not recall, that Vogle's hotel was resort
for iewd men ard women whose conduct
was indecent. This was not allowed by
the court, as they thought it was too gen
erai and the witness should give the names
Of his informants.
ped at and visited VOSle's hotel, testified
that at different times hs had seen disrep
utable women at the house Of VOgle the
witness gave their names and testified that
they mostly came in tho back way. VOsls
and his wife both knew that these parties
were there. Rooms were kept up stairs
for improper purposes. and witness had
seen them occupied by men and women
money had been paid Mrs. VOsls for ;Lo
use of the rooms. The witness told OF ors
man he had seen there and refused to tell
any other names for fear Of criminatin:,
himself. Vogle and his wife were in these
rooms ut times when they were occupied,
aud the latter carried in beer.
Shields testified that no had often seen
parties Of disrcputable women aud men
at the hotel of VOslo. They would drink
VIM. McElroy, another witness, testified
hot Go ho.l Soor, FOL hin ,vo,,,an
Vogle's, at different times. He had seen
conduct Of tho most indecent kind iu the
house with Mrs. Vo~!.'s knowledge, and
he tcsc-ibci the 'r..i.ncf uf such con
duct AZ witne>..d by himself. Scott
Namaker also es:,fcd to having seen
crowds Of women there drinking and ca
ruuSinr.
AT Ihis ,jumcturo c,.u:.s, irr the com
:nouweaith stated ti,.,s they were sur
prised at the testimony which had bccu
offered by the defense when they t,n,.
the case they were assured by Vogle that
nothing Of this kind had been carried ~.
at his house to his knowledge; very litts,,
of the testimony did connect him with IL
the commonwealth did not think it worth
while to waste any Ulore time Oh the ca>e.
and they were satisfied that i ver;:ict OF mo-:
guilty would be taken, with the county for
Office costs aud costs Of this term th,s As
satisfactory to ali concerned; the defendant,
through his counsel, stated that he hal
made this publication for the pt:blic good,
and he only desired to he vind,ca:cd.
The court in charging the jury said that
it was satisfied from the evidence that the
article complained of had rot been too
broad or severe in regard &. tho character
of the house. Tie prosecutor had been
granted license from this court To keep
a respectable house how far lle had done
so was now shown. The court then di-
rected the verdict to ba taken rs llpl been
agreed upon.
WednesRay mo1'ning.-This mOrnin.
the case OF com'th vs. N. E. ArnolI,
charged with false pretensc, WAS take,
up. The prosecutor was j. &. Walker, #
the firm of Walker & Son, lumber dat
ers, of Gap, this county. 1t appcaIc.i,
from his allegation that early iu MARI,
last lie went to Curwensvillc, Cleali;. II
county, where hs became acquainted
with the defendant. They talk. Il
of business matters and tho pur-
chase Of lumber by the prosecutor
from Arnold. After the prosecutor re-
turned homo he and the defendant b..
considerable correspondence. Finally T.! @
latter wrote letter and sent il drawn up
contract to Mr.. Walker for q certain
amount of lumber, and a request tina. il u
terms We're agreed to (aud Arnold did not
care whether they We're or E;)
prosecutor should send three notes
Ut the firm FOR $3.50 each, for 30, o.
and 30 days, to tho defendant,
making them payable at the bank. Pc
v,ous to this the defendant had assured
the prosecutor that he WAS worth $50, ,00O
therefore they did not hesitate tn agree
to the terms OF the cantract. On this l,-
presentation they sent on the notes, as -
questcd. They were discounted :,t tho
Columbia National bauk, AID were ii,
tested when they became .ln,.. But ono
car load of lumber, which was valued g.
$S2, was received by the prosecutor i
large number ut letters then passed 10
tween the parties, but no mo.s lumber WAS
: :hipped, although tn. prosecutor ende.v
tr;d TO obtain that which Was CO ntract, Il
for and paid by these notes. Some tine
afterwards tie prosecutor made inquiry
the circumstances of the ;ie-
:endant. From what he could learn %
did not think he was worth $40 O0O
On his cross examination the prosecute r
that up to this tims he has not
paid the three notes which were p.O,IucCd
III cOnrt EG Instructed tue bank to COL
lect them from n. +. Arnold. He did rot
consider that he owed tine defendant any,
thing for the car lo.i Of lumber he la,
although he did not pay i,n
notes he would have paid them had h
received all Of the lumber c,ntracte,i fu.
Witness also admitted that he had Order,i
other Sizes OF lumber from defendant than
those embo.:ied liz the contract. 4 VT
ness who WAS called in regard to the cir
OF the accused stated that lIa
knew nothing about it.
At this point the Common u calihs
counsel stated that they would abandon
tie case, which had, however, been
brought in good faith By Mr.. Walker.
They did not think tboic was sufficient
evidence to make out case oi false pre-
tense. The counsel for the defense stated
that they were willing. ready aud auxious
to go on and were ready t" show that the
defendant, who has paid the notes. is 4
reputable lumber mG; chant. worth $50,
OOO, aud that the prosecutor low owes
them se2. Tue commonwealth did ;.ot
want to push the Case, however. t..
court charged the jury that they must
lad verdict of not guilty, but as this u
) misdemeancr they would have tn
dispose of the costs. The jury pat tho
,osts Oh The prosecutor, Joseph G. Walker.