Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1884-10-07
JUDGES HARD AT WORK.
TRYING GASES In The uUnmoN PLEAS
interesting Issuss 90 Try the kisnt 60 Prop
efsy Levied Upon ~ the ShesiG-
An 1mportsps Guaranty suit.

in'srsssins Issues 90 Try the hisnt 60 Prop
ersy Levied Upon ~ the shesiG-
An 1mportsus Guaranty suit.
nkFoRE JUDGE LIVINGSTON.
The suit Of j. r. Reed and Hiram
Stamm, doing business ~ j. r. Reed Il
70; W. Y. A. Offender, issue to try tho
the sheriff. was attached for trial this
morning. On an execution Issued against
JACOB Siegler BY the defendant $500
cigars, 10 cigar moulds and some other
property belonging to plaintiff was found
In Seigler's shop.
Mr. Offenders counsel, Il, y. Davis.
stated that he desired TO withdraw
from the case, because his olient failed TO
appear after being notified TO do 30. but
the court would not allow him TO do 40.
| and the trial was proceeded with, The
jury rendered verdict in favor of the
plaintiff.
| The next case attached was that of
Magdalona j. Sieglor vs. g. A. Offender,
also an issue to try the right to certain
| property levied upon by the sheriff. In
March, 1850. A. Offender issued an exc
cution against the husband OF plaintiff
and among the articles levied nj pom wero
household goods, valued at el53. 12,
which were the property OF plaintiff. paid
for out OF her EARNINGS. There was no
defense offered. Jury out.
In the suit of the city of Lancaster va.
George Lint, soire faolas sur mechanics
lien, judgment by consent was entered in
favor OF plaintiff for t3.23 and costs Of
suit.
In the suit of Milton Eby and John l..
Bair, doing business as Eaby & Bair,
vs.. George ID. Bender, judgment by
default was entered against the defendant
for $32S.24.
BEFORE JUDGE PATTERSON
The suit OF the First National
bank, of Lancaster, vs. ii. NJ.
Shreiner, j. Frederick Sener and ii. z.
Rhoads, executors of Michael Zahm, de-
ceased, was the first case attached for rial,
on Monday afternoon. This was an ac-
ton to recover on promissory note dated
May 0, 1877, for GO days, signed by Diller
Il Croft, made payable to the order Of
Sam'l Croft and endorsed by Saml Croft
II. ID. Croft & ID. G. Swartx. On the day
the note matured, payment was guarau.
teed by Michael Zshm, the note was no.
protested and the bank brought this suit
4 Diller Il Croft, the makers Of the note.
made an assignment on August IA, 1877,
and the bank received on account OF the
, plaintiff proved the signatures on the note,
they offered 1t in evidence and rested.
, The defense was that Mr.. Zahm's estate
could not be held for the note on his guar
antee, At the time the note matured Mr..
ID. g. Swsrtz, one of the endorsers, was
an officer OF the bank and knew that the
noto was not paid. On July 25, few
weeks after the note matured, the defense
claimed that Mr.. Swartz went to the Off
oers Of the First National bank, instructed
them to charge tho old note to him. to
have new one made for the same amount
and told them he would guarantee tho
payment OF the note. The defense claimed
that this was resumption of Swartz's liza
bilty rs an endorser and that ZAhm could
not be held for the payment Of the note
until all tho other endorsers are proceeded
, against and ther il the money could not be
made up, Mr.. Zidm's estate was liable. On
D trial.