Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1889-12-03
An 1NrEREsr1Ne CASE.
A Verdict Rendered Against the Estate
or the Late Philip Blessing.


The suit OF Kerbs 4 Spiess VS.. John
Showalter and q. w. Taylor, was attached
for trial before Judge Livingston on
Monday afternoon. This case came into
court on an appeal by defendants from the
Judgment of Alderman McConomy entered
in favor Of plaintiff for $500.
agent, Daniel A. Mayer, contract was
made on. September 0, 1881, under
which the defendants agreed 10
deliver their crop Of tobacco amount
ing 10 6,O00 pounds. About the
time the tobacco was ready for delivery
the defendants came TO him with a sample
of tobacco which contained from 80 TO 40
per. cent. Of white vein. The defendants
said that was n fair sample Of their
tobacco, and plaintiff said he
did not want the tobacco, and it
was sold TO another party. Subsequently
It was learned that the sample was not a
fair one; that the tobacco was Of better
quality and that 1t was sold TO another
party at an advance In price and this suit
was brought to recover damages for not
getting the tobacco.
The defense was that tho sample was u
fair one, that plaintiffs agent released them
from the contract when he saw the sample.
1t was denied that tho tobacco was sold for
more money 10 another party, but on the
contrary IL was claimed that 500 less was
received than would have been the price IL
delivered to plaintiffs and accepted.
BEFORE JUDGE PATTERSON.
The suit of the commonw ealth Of Penn
sylvania, for the use of the county Of Ian
caster, VS.. Adam Offender and VIM. &.
kneezal, administrators c. I. u. of Philip J..
Blessing, deceased, was attached In tho
lower court room, before Judge Patterson,
OH Monday afternoon.
Plaintiff showed that Adam Offender
had been returned to court for embezzling
funds belonging to Monterey Lodge OF
Odd Fellows He was tried and convicted
but absconded between the time he was
convicted and the date for sentence. Mr..
Blessing was his surety In the sum OF
81 900, and after Offender skipped his re-
cognizance WAS forfeited and this suit was
brought. After plaintiff closed its testi-
mony counsel for defendant moved for
non-suit, and lengthy argument followed.
For the plaintiff was argued that the
endorsement on tho returns forfeited abso-
lutely was all the record required. Tho
defense claimed that the record books of
the court was the proper record 10 offer in
evidence.
The argument developed the fact that the
record book, through a clerical error,
showed that William and not Philip Blos
sing was the surety.
The court denied the non-suit and the
defense this morning asked leave to with
draw their pleas and raise legal question
rs 10 whether the amount of the regogniz-
ance can he recovered.
II was argued In support Of this position
that the writ filed an opinion In the crimi-
nal case against Offender sustaining the
demurrer filed to the indictment This it
was claimed ended the suit on which Blcs-
sing was tho surety aud as he did not again
renew his rerognizance, his surety cannot
now bo held for the amount of the rocogn-
zancc.
The court declined to allow the plead
ings 10 be withdrawn and directed tho jury
To find fer plaintiff for the full amount of
tho rocognizance with interest and YER
Ill In2 "a