Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1889-05-23
The summing up was very clearly
Ind strongly made by Mr.. Logue,


and strongly made by Mr.. Logue.
During the delivery of the Judges
charge Hay listened attentively and
watched the Judge closely.
The case of David Thomas and Will
liam Fauver was moved, and jury
was empaneled. City Solicitor Frank
M. Porch appeared for one of the de-
PENDANTS, VIM. Fauver. These two
young men had been indicted for steal
ing a buffalo robe and horse blanket,
valued at $32, from Isaac A. Dubois,
proprietor of the Millville stage line,
on the 18th of last December. WIN.
Hitchner was sworn and said the arti-
cles were recovered, the robe at Cedar
vile. at Mr.. Fosters, and the blanket
at stable in that village.
The evidence of Philip Sheppard and
Ebert Nieukirk showed that the robe
was Dubois and the blanket was Nieu-
kinks.
David Thomas had pleaded guilty
to stealing the robe. Dave was put on
the stand and declared that Fauver
had stolen the robe himself and put it
in Albertson's glass house; Fauver, he
said, had stolen it from the Millville
stage.
The case rested.
When the jury went out another
jury was empaneled to try the same
| blooming pair oD an Indictment for
stealing the horse of Ebert Nieukirk.
When the jury was empaneled
Fauver retracted his plea of not guilty
and offered plea of guilty and offered
to give evidence for the state.
Lawyer Orestes Cook appeared for
Thomas.
Ebert Nieukirk was sworn and
testified that he had hired horse
to these two boys on the morning of
Dec 18th, last and when he saw the
horse again it was in the possession of
a man by the name of Newcomb, near
Dividing Creek.
Mr.. Newcomb traded with them his
horse for this one of Neiukirk's and
paid them $12. so to boot, and afterwards
returned it to the owner. There was
but little testimony and the jury went
out about as the jury in the case of
| VIM. Fauver returned verdict of
guilty, and court adjourned.
All the Jurors not on this panel were
discharged for the term.
FRIDAY MORNING.
The two juries which were out when
court adjourned yesterday afternoon,
returned verdicts of guilty in each
case-that of Hay and Thomas.
When court met this morning, Judge
Hoagland announced-Judge Reed be-
| ing on the bench-that the following
| decisions were made in appeal cases;
In the case of Reebe Hurff, appellant,
and John Mcpherson appellee, the
judgment of the Justices court was
affirmed, and judgment rendered for
Mr.. Mcpherson in the sum of $11.12
| and costs.
Elwell VS. McGrath, the judgement
of the lower court was reversed and
Mr.. Elwell does not have to pay for
the shoes.
In the case of G. Harry Gosbin, ap-
pellant and Elizabeth Ottinger, ap-
pellee the judgement was given for the
plaintiff, Mrs. Ottinger, in the sum of
$22 90 and costs.
In the case of Steelman, VS. Stokes
treasurer, judgement was given for
the plaintiff, Stokes, for $40 and COSTS
In the case of Charles d. Wells, ap
cellant, and Andrew J. Steelman, ap
pellee, Judgment was rendered for
Wells, in the sum of $25, and costs,
the judgement of the lower court be-
ing reversed.
PRISONERS SENTENCED.
Prisoners were sentenced as follows
Joshua Wilson, a colored boy. convicted
of larceny was sentenced to the county
Jail for three months.
James Beebe, entering and breaking,
was sentenced to State prison for
year at hard labor.
Andrew Sayre, breaking and enter.
ing, State prison. years at hard labor.
Arthur Allen, assault and battery,
fined $l.00 and costs.
George F. Brady, entering and lar
cens, State prison 6 months, at hard
labor.
George F. Brady, conspiracy, county
jail 2 days.
Walter s. Hay. conspiracy, State
prison at hard labor for year.
James Tullis assault and battery,
fined $1,000 and costs and county Jail
10 days.
Winfield johnson, grand larceny,
county Jail months.
John Shaw, Jr., and Albert Dickin-
son, indicted with Winfield Johnson,
received suspension of sentence.
David Thomas and William, Fau-
yer, convicted OF grand larceny, were
both sentenced to the State prison for
two years.
Ine the case of Emma Cloud the
court suspended sentence under the
understanding that she would leave
the locality; the court said she would
be under the surveillance of the court,
and if it ever come to the ears of the
court that there was any more disor-
derly conduct attributed to her, she
would be severely dealt with by the
,.k