Johnstown weekly Democrat. (Johnstown, Cambria County, Pa.) 1889-1916, 1890-03-14

davit OF defense. Motion granted.
In the matter OF j. IL. Fisk, Administrator OF
~ II. Fisk, against Wm. McManamy, motion
for judgment against defendant for want OF ap-
pearance. Motion granted
In the matter OF Executors of John Ryan, de-
ceased, against Michael Rodgers, motion ijf
.-..isu defendant for want of appear
ance. Motion granted.
In the matter Of Martin Ward against James
McCloskey motion for judgment against defend
ant Tor want of appearance, Motion granted.
In the matter OF A. w. Buck, Administrator,
against James McCloskey, motion for Judgment
against defendant for want Of appearance NC
tion granted.
In the matter OF VIM. NJ. Brinker against
Mrs. c. Parrish and j. r. Parrish, agent, motion
for rule to show cause why judgment should not
be entered for want of sufficient afidavit Of de-
fense returnabe at Argument court. Granted,
BY Horace R. Rose, nsq,
Petition OF Robert snowden, Guardian OF
Roger Dibert and John Dibert minor heirs OF
John Il. Dibert, deceased, for permission to join
the remainder of the heirs in the sale and con-
veyance OF certain real estate to John Thomas.
Granted.
Petition of Robert 2. Snowden, guardian OF
John d. Weaver, minor child OF Susan Weaver,
deceased, for permission to join the remaining
heirs In the sale and conveyance of certain real
estate TO John Thomas.
BY Frank j. O'Conner, Esq.
Petition OF Ma2zie NJ Kelly minor child OF
Martha Kelly, deceased, for appointment of G.
NJ. Hughes guardian Petition granted.
Petition of Franklin p, Kelly by next friend
for the appointment OF G.. NJ. Hughes Guardian,
Petition granted.
After calling the bar list, a jury was called in
the case OF Joseph Miller against Nell Nc
Glade. After which Court adjourned until
tuesday morning.
TUESDAY, MORNING SESSION.
The case of Miller against McGlade was
the first case taken mp. This is a feignod
issue, being Il scire ttcids to revive a judg-
ment entered in favor of Joseph Miller
against Edward McGlade, Patrick Comey
and p McGough. The plaintiff alleges
that Patrick Comey who was but surety
in SAID judgment paid the same to Joseph
Miller and this scire tacias is brought to
obtain revival of the judgment for the
benefit Of Patrick C6mey, surety.
The entire morning session was con-
sumed in taking testimony in this case.
EBENsBURG, March 11.-Court met at
the usual hour, when the case of Miller
(tor the use of Comey) VS.. McGlade was
taken up. The facts in the case as ad-
puced from the evidence are about these
1t appears that in 1868 Edward Nc
Glade borrowed "A sum of money from
Joseph Miller. Upon one of the notes
given for this money Patrick Comey was
bail, and afterward paid $142 the amount
OF the note. This suit is brought by the
representatives of Joseph Miller-Mrs.
Kate Blaisdell and Mrs. Emma Davis-to
recover from McGlade the money paid
by Comey for him. The verdict is really
for the use OF Patrick ComeY. For some
legal reason this round about course haG
might be reimbursed for the bail money
paid by him.
Mr. McGlade claimed that he paid the
note himself and gave notice to Comey
not to pay anything to MI. Miller. On
the contrary the plaintiff alleged that the
money paid by McGlade was simply Tho
interest on this and other notes held 10y
Miller against McGlade.
After several hours the jury returned
with verdict for the plaintiff in the sun
of three hundred dollars, being the full
amount of the judgment in issue and 1t!
interest.
The next case taken up was E. DeemcI
e Co., against c. GUyer, trustee. Thi
was feigned issue brought to determine
the ownership of some three miles o
railroad track, an engine, seven trucks
and other property connected Herewith
This property is said to have been wortl
about four thousand dollars, and wa!
used by p. and A. Flynn, lumbermen II
the north of the county p. and A
Flynn being financially troubled
gave to c. Guyer, Trustee of several o
their (P. and A. Flynn's) creditors
| a Judgment note for 100000. On thi'
judgment the property was levied on il
spring of 1888 and, after several adj
iourned sales, sold in December, 1888. A
this sale it was bought by Elias Deeme
for the firm of E. Deemer 81 Co., of Viii
Transport, Pa, who, it was claimed by
Elias Deemer, had some interest in the
property before the sale, and was particu
larry desirous to secure the property a
SherfI's sale to complete their title. Tht
price paid tor the property was $105. E
Deemer g. Co. clam the property undel
this sale showing that the sale was prop
erly advertised, regular and according tC
law, and went into immediate possession
of it,
The defendant claims that he, being
then plaintiff in the judgment under
which the property was sold, had nc
notice of the sale that +. Deemer 4
Co. had served several notices on the
Sheriff not to sell the property for it be
longed to them, and the buyer would take
no title. Disregarding and not reading
these notices at the sale, the Sheriff solo