Delaware gazette and state journal., 1884-05-22

esnig had been paid 10 the latter BY
cloud to sensenig, but'the balance of the
protested paper, $l,292, with interests
and costs, making = total of 81, OBS. n,
WAS the basis Of the suit. Mr.. Hoffeeker
stated that Mr.. Katroth, who was a
cattle dealer Of Lancaster county, Pa
went into business with Mr.. Clond, who
lives In Brandywine hundred, this
county. By their terms Of agreement
KAfroth bought cattle and sold them to
Cloud at cost, the latter selling them In
turn to the best advantage. II he sold
them at profit he divided with Ksfroth,
and II there WAS loss It was equally
divided between them, Cloud. however.
always being responsible to Kairoth for
the cost Of the cattle, less the amount Of
the loss when the sales did not net
profit. he gave the notes and check In
payment and they were protected.
Henry M. Washabaugh,a notary public
OF Chester, testified to protesting the
Larkin oheok, but on CROSS. .ex xamina alton
could not positively remember that he had
sent notice of the protest to Cloud,
although he felt certain that he did SO, in
accordance with his custom.
The court disposed OF this point by
saying that the decision had long sincs
been made that the notsrial certificate
and seal proves all matters connected
with protest, including the sending OF
the required notices. Mr.. Hoffecker was
allowed to send the protested check to
the jury, and Mr.. Lore noted an OK.
oeption.
Thomas K. Young, paying teller and
notary public at the Farmers Bank, this
city, testified to the protest of the Larkin
notes for about $500 and $500. These
notes, together with the remaining two,
were also offered In evidence, and the
plaintiff rested.
Mr.. Lore objected to the Kafroth and
Sensenig note, as the defense admitted
that one half Of the amount had been
paid. He then said that II counsel for
the plaintiff would adhere to his opening
statement he would move for non-suit,
as from what he told the jury Cloud &
KafrOth had quasi partnership, sharing
Losses and profits alike, and no proof of q
settlement between them had been made.
1t was well l.settled principle that one
partner cannot sue another until there is
q settlement between them to ascertain
the state Of their affairs.
Chief Justice Comegys said the state
ment of Mr.. Hoffecker did not imply q
partnership between the two parties and
Mr.. Lore did not make his motion for o
non-suit.
Mr.. Lore, In opening for the defense,
said there WAS partnership between the
men from April, 1878, until September,
1875, and that In the course OF the bust
ness Cloud lost money, and in reality
Rsfroth owed him considerable sum.
Mr.. Lore then called Henry Kafroth,
who said that from 1869 until March,
1873, he bought cattle for Cloud, on com.
mission, for t2 head and expenses.
Afterwards the arrangement was for
Cloud to pay him cash on delivery for the
cattle, together with his expenses, and
evenly divide the profits of the sale with
him. In the course Of rigid examina-
tion, however, he denied that there was
any partnership between himself and
Cloud, but said when any cattle died on
Clouds hands he bore hslf the loss. When
Mr.. Lore handed him the note for $500
and LArkins' check for $205, and asked
him II they were not given him to take
up the $500 note, he said they were, and
that he held them without taking up the
note, for other money that Cloud owed
him, and for which he had Clouds due
bill for $400, which he showed in his
account book. The due bill WAS written
and signed with lead pencil. Mr.. Lore
showed some settlement books containing
several other signatures OF Mr.. Cloud,
and when the witness admitted them to
be Clouds, he offered them in evidence.
Mr.. Hotfscker objected to these books
ss having no bearing upon the matter at
Issue. The court ruled that they were
admissible, as they contained accounts
relative to the business between Kafroth
and Cloud.
Mr.. Lore then handed the witness over
to Mr.. Hofecker, to whom he said that
he had no other arrangements with Cloud
than these he had already described.
Levi x. Bsir, proprietor of hotel at
Mechaniosburg, LaooAster county, Pa f,
was called, and testified that in 1876 he
| heard Ksfroth say that he (Ksiroth) aud
Cloud were partners in the cattle bust
ness, except as far as fat cattle we're con-
cerned. Witness had bought CATTLE and
dealt with both Kafroth aud Cloud They
gathered cattle together and frequently
kspt them at his place over night.
Alfred l. Dsrriokson Of Brsndywine
hundred said that he wss present whsn
Ksfroth and Cloud entered into partner.
ship. He also made several settlements
between them, On behslf OF Cloud, and
gave their transactions iu detail.
| At 6 O'Clock the case was suspended
and the jury discharged until Tuesday
morning.
| BLAKg's HEAVY SENTENCE.
| Before adjournment, Charles Blake, W hO
was indicted for burglsriously entering
the house of Joshua l.. Pusey with intent
to commit larceny, but convicted of the
larceny OF an umbrella only was brought
into court for sentence. Chief Justice
Comsgys said the character OF his crime
neosssi!ated the making Of an example ir
his case, aud thereupon sentenced him tC
pay $6 restitution money and costs, be
whipped with 20 lsshes, and be i'm.
prisoned for three years.
As Chief Justice Comegys left the court
room, Blake glared at him savsgely, but
made no other demonstration. He was
returned to his cell aud court adjourned
until Tuesday morning.
When court reassembled at 10 O'Clock
Tuesday morning-Chief Justice Comesyi
and Judges Wootten and Houston on tn.
bench-ths cas- of Henry Kafroth va
William NJ. Cloud, was resumed. Alfred
j. Derriokson, who WAS on the stand fol
the defense at the last adjournment, wal
GROSS. questioned by Mr.. Hotfeoker, attor
ney for the plaintiff, but no new or ma
terisl points were developed.
Mr.. Kafroth was recalled by the de
Tense, and in response to Mr.. Lore's in
quiries denied that he had agreed Il
meet one-half OF the losses on the note
outstanding II Cloud would give him
note for the $412 at the final settle
ment.
William NJ. Cloud, the defendant, wal
called to the stand by Mr.. Lore and de
tailed at length his business relation
with Katroth. He insisted that the,
entered into regular partnership, BY
which Kairoth WAS to receive one half o
the profits and sustain one-hal
of the losses-Kairoth to d
the buying and Cloud tn
selling. He claimed that at the las
settlement If all the notes were pal,
there would be $4l2 dus him and Katroth
hut that he was not responsible for tn
full amount of the notes, as he an
, Ksiroth were to bear all Losses equally
J He estimates that Kafroth's share OF tn
losses sustained would be something owe
1900. He further said there had neve
i, been any final settleman of the partner
ship relations between him and Kafroth
and positively denied that the signatur
! to the due bill for $412 shown by Katrot
i was his.
Levi e. Bair was recalled ar