Bridgeton pioneer., 1889-01-10

car in which there were five bales. The
four bales were for Hand & Townsend.
The one bale left was the one claimed
to have been sold to Cruise and which
Cruise took.
Charles McDaniels said he took the
remaining bale out of the car and de-
livered it at G. w. Hands and Mr..
Donnelly, Cruises partner, took charge
of it.
Lucius Yates said he saw Captain
Donnelly and George Cruise, Davids
brother, carry the bale of sacks away.
The defense was, that the appellant,
David Cruise, though ordering a bale
of sacks of Hand, never got it, and,
firing of waiting, had ordered bale
of sacks from Mr.. Robertson, in Phila-
delphia. These, it was claimed, were
the sacks which were seen to have
been taken away by Donnelly and
George Cruise.
These facts were testified to by Capt.
David Cruise.
A number of witnesses were brought
to prove that Cruise did not get any
sacks from Hand, and that the sacks
which were removed from the platform
near Hands Office at Long Reach were
those purchased from Mr.. Robertson
of Philadelphia. Charles T. Robertson
of Philadelphia was sworn and identi-
fed the bills of lading of sacks sold
Cr ruise; with this the case rested.
The horse case of Foulk g. Turner
against the Robbins boys, will be tried
next Monday at 10 o'clock, and will be
interesting.
The case of James Ingersoll and
David Brarenchuck was called and
quickly disposed Of. One of the parties
interested, William Weisman, having
inopportunely gone out of court, a nom
suit was entered.
The case of Father Walsh and JIM
my McGrath went over for the pres
ent, and the case of Frank Griner and
James Hutchinson was taken up. This
was to recover wages for Griners
son, who had been employed by Hutch
inson by the month. The Justices
transcript showed that the case had
been settled in the Justices court, but
Griner refused to accept the settle
ment. VanSyckle and Alex R. Fithiau
were the attorneys. Lawyer Fithian
claimed nonsuit, when lively dis
cussion between counsel took place.
A nonsuit was not granted, but a rule
was taken on Esquire F. P. Riley, on
account of the irregularity of the
papers and for their amendment. Rule
granted on motion of both lawyers.
MONDAY AFTERNOON.
Court resumed business by calling
the case of Samuel Hendrickson and
Samuel Spencer. This was an action
to recover on a promissory note given
Spencer by Hendrickson, for $4,000.
Walter H. Bacon, ESQ.,, conducted the
case for Spencer, aud Lawyer Van
Syckle, for Hendrickson. Hendrick-
son bought barn from Spencer, at
Newport, which stood on property be-
longing to Joab Sheppard at the time
the barn was built. Spencer built the
barn. Hendrickson gave a note for
the barn April 4th, 1888. Joab Shep
pard made an assignment, and through
this, Luther Bateman, Jr., became
possessed of the property, and Hen
Erickson bought the property of Bate
man, by which he now claims to own
the barn. Hendrickson had paid So so
on the account of the note.
This case was followed by the case
of Christopher and Sylvester A. Leith
& Co., or rather J. Frank Shores and
S. A. Leith Il Co., involving the price
of barrel of Gem whiskey used at
Shores farm. Jas. J. Reeves appeared
for Leith & Co., and w. A. Logue for
Bitter.
The book-keeper of the firm, one
MIR. Ashby, was placed upon the stand
with his books to prove the account,
which was for 46 gallons of Gem
whiskey at $3.50 per gallon.
The defense was that Christopher
Bitter was not connected with the
place referred to Gas the FARM. Mr..
Bitter was placed upon the stand, and
denied any knowledge of the firm of
Sylvester A. Leith & Co., or of the pur-
chase of the whiskey in question. On
cross examination, however, he ad-
mitted that he owned the place, and
that he bought two barrels of whiskey
in his own name to give Frank Shores
and his son William start in the bus
iness. He denied that he had told Mr..
Reeves that he would pay this bill, as
he claimed that Shores and Win. Bit
ger should pay it.
j. f. Shores and VIM. Bitter were
placed on the stand, and testified that
they We're the proprietors of the
nNI i