Daily Republican., 1884-05-21
: .EEDINGS.

IDlNoo'
,,rROTH VI
gEn BUsl'
EBAY.
o'clock Tues
Chief Justlc
nd Houston OF
.... moved tha
eek vs. Franci
.tf, uext term
Of a materia
worn, and tes
ness who is HoW
.rtdpnce is of th'
nj, case, and thai
A. he was unable
at this term o.
oa was then granted
Esd, applied for q
W., he case of Isaac Jel'
aa'1. y. Fanny H. McKeowan. on ae. &c.
y w., y 9l Absence of the plaintin 4
n 10 is is tIc only witness I.vns wnlcR R.a nc
;h' . '',e ,,n,innancs, hanrS but It wa, va.
= h, he Court, with a rule that
I. y mi., !. be rried next term. .
emmog. mr then made his opening
~ Shl1r'r for he drtense 9.,,. in the case y
sn' X T,tro,h VS.. William M.
py rortfuIed that it had been
.soT, a by the evidence that .
..S;n % ,srea between the par.
y sLR ,tot the notes, on which suit
u. - br"upht, we're for cattle sold
'.0u, ~ who failed to lake them up,
M each Of The parties should
,ssir I share Of the loss. He also
sSs1 AL that even # anything was
\ rIaiu,ifi, it could not exceed
ls,s for 500, and the one for $2o,
interest, M as i. was shown that the
<. ssco and the check for $2O5
ii siyen fer the purpose of taking up
Sts 1880, and therefore were not
cOnsidrrr,i in the case
vaS followed by Charles B. Lore,
.lU for the defense, who said
,bis partrership, az explained BY
ltnney for the plaintiff, reminded
| ftbe bargain the Dutchman made
Ihis wife. that all his property was
Ious to him, and all she owned
IN. and al. the proceeds OF their
rs 10 le his. He said that was
End Of a bargain the attorney for
baintiif would try 10 make the jury
Ne the defendant had entered into
/ bis client.
!, Lore said that to believe William
loud had made any such agreee-
~ Is claimed, would be to admit
he was devoid of common sense.
,rdipg to the plaintiff, Kafroth and !
4 we're to buy cattle together, and
Cloud was to pay the first named
10 money lie had laid out, then sell 4
sttle, and if there were any profits, |
|e them with him.
aid that it had been admitted by |
,ther side that if there was any |
hey were to tear it between them,
10 COntended that as these notes
been gwen for cattle purchased |
them, the loss should be borne by |
equally, but as his client had |
dy lost s2,lOO on just such worth. |
notes, it was but just that Mr..
oth should lose these.
Lore also claimed that the allee-
mature Of William NJ. Cloud tol
% bill for Sil2, was not genuine,
'ritten BY the same person who |
|rawn up the note. He asked the |
10 carefully compare this signature
that of Mr.. Cloud, on the other |
s
Hotiecker closed for the plaintiff,
paricularly called the attention ofI
|uiy TO three letters written BY
|ln KalVoth, in which the attorney |
ntd he admitted his liability for
notes, and also that he failed tol
sing Ie WOrdabout any partnership
con them.
slso stated that while it was not
parry to carry on business in the
lese parties had done, in this sec.
'ar country, it was a very com.
'cIIrence in Lancaster county.
0ld assumed all the liability for
o which he made himself, and
1tp,ed notes, and paid them to
lF0th, which tn ned out to be
~, ne, and he alone. was re-
Ie for them.
that Mr.. Cloud WAS
Io'e ior each of the notes and the
va denied that the check for
'eel sent to Kafroth on the
{, {, DOT claimed that it had been
l., .Le purpose Of renewing anoth.
Slich eventually went to pro.
. slso called attention TO tae
!, lle last entries in the account
'Ia'lhg to the business transac.
" Heth the parties, were dated
VI ,n1 ,t notes, and closed by ad.
y ! Nhe Jury not to be swayed
lcIuded his argument about :,
" ,th, and the Chief Justice,
u ,1g the jury, discharged
i. !. ~ o'clock this morning.
7 Jury was then drawn and
d., D. Joseph H. Harper VS.. Han.
l'n .i'i $ administrator was taken :
iSh .S.h. with benjamin Nields. : J
'ne PIalntitf, and Lore Il EN-. !
tut Tue defendant. This is an =
tpr.ver t''ny on a due bill tor $500, \
,s,,o 'avor OF Joseph II. Harper, by
the facts Of Which are (;
me- in May, 1875, Sarah Mar.|ss
"t.es,att, tes,att, leaving one child, !.
trs,I 'reoIe minded. Joseph H.
, Oio'arr IT, a, of the deceased, adj.
! ,,in oi' me estate, valued at S787.
y. "'' ~, hot Reside in this State, .
a. "S MS attorney, received the t
II tb;ig gave ave him, among other u
=. '"'s 81 ane bill for $500, but the T.
!, ~ not not finally settled until $
III ,iaa lon' There is an erasure q
VI .'oLl h On the due bill, which it o
!" y ~ me plaintiff was done i
! o,a ,h;arman, but which the s
pIS" L,"'neu was the work Of
oHGa WAS opened for the plaiptiAl
el.ds, 4 who, after stating the !
! jury, called Lewis T. Sbsne v
'issG stand, who, upon beipp n
Wr ,inea that he had some buui. b
r,' sas IL harman al. in 1879, and n
.,s,I 'as IN his office he seen him i
sn,ne wnra g on the due bill, and 8
:, 1ord !, " three" and after. I p
y II to Harper. ''
,'ssiamlnation vsii by Mr.. Ltre
,nc"H na'u L. he was positive the A
'"ttu H In Court was the one o
\ ,l"rmaa ,ran1 an alter; it had lain b
u 4 'front.' of him, and he looL' @ s