Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-08-28
MON PLEAS COURT.
Cases Up for Consideration IN the Firs'
Week.

Sd0oS Op luz OOhbtuCEoNoA ." sAAS A.'S'
Week.
: BEFORE JUDGE LIVINGSTON.
d. p. Locher & Son VS. Chas ]. Rhodes.
Action Oh IA note on which defendant was
the endorscr. Judgment was entered in
: favor of the plaintiff for 1,47, with stay
of execution for six months.
The cases OF f. L. Morgan,et al, Joseph
Stubbs, ct al, jeremiah Brown. ct al, VS..
II. H. Good. were continued at the plain
tiff's costs.
The case of John Hildebrand VS. Benz.
, lehman, summons in debt vas continued
as one of the jurors had been spoken to
concerning the case by plaintiff.
In the cases of Eli Lybe VS.. John A.
Charles. ct al. and vs.. David Bair, jr.,
the defenGante filed an additional plea to
which plaintiff plead surprise and the case
was continued.
Helm s. Raub, VS.. Jacob f. Andrews.
This was an issue to try the right to lot
of tobacco levied upon by tho sheriff as
the property of Amos and Benjamin
Bleecher. 1t appeared that in 1878 the
Bleechers grew a lot of tobacco on the
land and 10 shares with Albert Smith,
New Providence. They sold their half
Interest in the crop to plaintiffs, who were
store keepers at New Providence, for $40
the plaintiffs paid for it by a former i'll
debtedness and an additional credit on
store goods. In 1879 Andrews issued an
execution Oh a Judgment held by himself
and levied on tho tobacco The plaintiffs
claimed it and gave bonds to the sheriff to
indemnify him. This suit was then
brought to try the light to the property,
which was sold by Mr.. Smith in 1880. he
turning half Of the price secured, which
was the Bleschers share, over to the
plaintiffs
The defense was that there was collu.
sion between the Bleechers and the plain.
tiffs in the sale to avoid the payment of
other creditors and that there was a sur
plus due to the B!eschels IN the tobacco
sale. Tho jury found for tho plaintiffs
after being out but five minutes.
Henry w. Sheibley, for ths use OF Abra-
ham G.. Sheiblcy vs. David B. Myer. This
was an action to recover $135 1S for goods
alleged to have been sold and delivered by
plaintiff to defendant The defense denied
that they ordered the goods aud claimed
that they were delivered to joseph
Schlegelmilich. The plaintiff was engaged
in the furnishing of coachmaker's supplies
aud did business in this city. The de-
fendant is carriage maker 1T Springville,
Mt. Joy township. On trial
BEFORE JUDGE PATTERSON.
Joseph Stark VS. Joseph Houser. Action
of replevin to recover 400 pounds OF to-
bacco which the plaintiff alleged was un.
lawfully taken away from the premises on
which it was dried, in violation of con-
tract between the parties. The tobacco
was grown on the shares by the parties,
but plaintiff claimed that it was to have
been sold By him aud tho proceeds be di
vided.
The defendant denied that the money
was to be divided, but it was the tobacco !;
he took no more away than his share, and
therefore tho action of repievin could not
b, sustained. The jury found for the de-
fsnsc.
Amos S. Urban and Henry Burger,
trading IS Urban & Burger, VS.. Barbara
Martin, wife of Benjamin Martin, owner,
aud Benjamin F. Martin, owner or reputed
owner, and Samuel Benner, contractor.
The plaintiffs testified that they furnished
materials fo- the erection of building for
Mrs. Barbara Martin. in Lancaster town
ship, amounting to s246 20. AS the bill
was not paid q mechanics lien was filed.
After plaintiff rest:d the defense asked for
q non. suit on the ground that it had not
been shown that Mrs. Martin was aware
that the material was being furnished in
her name. The court refused to grant the
nOu-suit. The defense then proceeded to
show that Benjamin Martin had Q c,ntraoted
with Samuel Benner for the erection of tt 5
house, and the latter bad been paid in fun
on the presentation of receipt signed
Urban & Burger, for 81 SO, setting forth
that Benner had paid that amount, on
account, for building materials furnished.
In rebuttal Amos Urban, of the firm of
Urban & Berger, testified that Son Of
Martin came to their office one day and
asked him about the paymen. by BeDner
for the lumber in tho house. Witness eau
toned them against making any payment
to Benner On the strength of the note.
Mr.. Berger testified that whilo alone in tie
Office one day Benner came in and repres
ented that the note given the firm for $50
had been paid. He then gave him re-
ceipt. The note was not paid, it afterward
went to protest and tho firm paid it. Ga
trial