Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-10-29
CRIMINAL COURT.


SitHNtV -ifttTHDuH .-HDm IN -. LC
rome DOsCh, OF this city, deserti0u. Mrs.
DOsch complained that her husband drove
her away from homo after having treated
her badly, and refuses to support her.
Tho defense was that the wife was the
fighter and made it so hot at home that
her husband could not live with her. The
testimony certainly showed that the pair
have had o great deal Of difficulty living
together. The court ordered the husband
TO pay his wife s. per week for her sup.
port and costs OF prosecution.
COm'th vs.. Albert Bcamis, city, descrtiOn
Amanda Beamis testified that her husband
refused to support her she had not lived
with him since July p, on account Of his
bad treatment he tJld her that ho did not
want to live with her and desired to get
rid of her his treatment of her has been
very bad and he would frequently beat
and starve her and have her locked up for
nothing. At one time he attempted to
have her put in an insane asylum, Fer
the defense tho husband testified that his
wife was in the habit Of going from homo
and getting intoxicated she did not
attend TO her duties 1T home and
took no care of herself; Lo provided
her with money but she expended il reck
essly and without judgment, the woman
is affected by nervousness aud defendant
thought she was crazy at times; he consult.
ed several physicians about the case aud
they thought the woman should be placed
in an insane asylum. Tho court ordered
the defendant to pay his wife 50 per week
and costs of prosecution.
Comth vs David S. Miller, surety of the
peace. The prosecutor was David Reese
who il was alleged the defendant threaten
ed to kill. Miller denied having done any
such thing. The court dismissed the case
aud divided the costs between tho parties.
The Electric Light Case In Court
Court met this morning for the PURPOSE
Of hearing argument in the preliminary
injunction, granted on application Of g.
+. Eshelman, to prevent the Maxim light
company from erecting polo in the
pavement at the corner of East King
street and Centre square. j. Hay Brown
opened the argument in behalf Of the
light company he cJatCudcd that the
control OF tho streets was entirely in the
city with respect to tho soil as well as the
surface when required for public use and
the mode of exercise Of the City's right
cannot bc inquired into. The lamp com.
mittce had directed whero the pole
is to DO put and 1t must bo done. J. w.
Johnson, for the city, gave as tho reason
| for putting the pole there that no other
place would answer the purpose, and If it
was not for the vault Mr. Eshelman would
not object. Mr.. Eshelman appeared fohhm.
self no claimed that the city was bound 10
respect private rights, and they had allowed
the vault to be made under tho pavement
and now have no right to destroy it. Ho
admitted that the city had rights
to make such improvements as were
demanded, but in exercise of that
IL they can accomplish their purpose with.
out injury to private property, they must
do 80 in this case they could have put the
pole outside of the curb whore it would
have served all purposes There is nothing
in the contract with tho light company
concerning the erection Of poles dosignat-
ing where they shall bo Iplacci thoy arc
merely to erect 1870 lights. Mr.. Naumau,
who with Mr.. Brown is counsel for tho light
company. concluded the argument taking
the same position. The court took tho
papers and reserved their decision.