Johnstown weekly Democrat. (Johnstown, Cambria County, Pa.) 1889-1916, 1890-06-13

the division line between Barr and Sus-
.quehanna townships. Henry Scanlan,
John Buck and Benjamin Wirtner ap-
pointed viewers.
Other petitions were presented, after
which the list of jurymen were called,
there being forty present.
Case of Nepper VS.. Nepper called. De-
fendant confessed judgment to the amount
of $295.1S. Settled.
Jurymen were then called to box as
follows; Jacob Albright, David W. Wiser,
Geo. F. Fresh, VIM. Kinney, John Itell,
E. T. Carswell, Frank r. Hay, Joseph
Christ, Hiram Ribblett, David W. Powell,
Michael Thomas, Geo. B. Oatman.
Case of repleyin was called-Horner VS..
Barnhart-Kuhn, attorney for plaintiff
and Chal. L. Dick for defendant. Jury
men we've being challenged and case not
yet opened when this report closed.
Verdict on caseof Horner VS.. Barnhart,
$40 for defendant.
Case of Mckay VS.. Anderson called.
Geo. NJ. Reade attorney for plaintiff, A.
V. Barker for defendant. Witnesses for
plaintiff heard and defendants case
opened when. Court adjourned to meet at
9 O'Clock Tuesday morning.
EBENsBURG, June 11,-Court called at
ga. NJ. Judge Krebs on the Bench.
Trial of case eiectment Neal Mckay
VS.. Joseph A. Anderson resumed. Geo.
NJ. Reade attorney for plaintiff A. V.
Barker for defendant. Joseph A. Ander-
son, the defendant, called to the witness
stand George Boreing was next called
to corborate statements of defendant
followed Henry Scanlan, Esq, of Carroll
town, who surveyed the land in dispute.
John Elliott --- Lawrent e, Jacob Nc
Donald and Jonathan Reese all testified
to cutting timber on the Mckay land in
Cambria township. A. j. Shoemaker, of
Ebensburg, was called to witness stand
| by Counsel for plaintiff in rebuttal of de-
fendants testimony. Mr.. Shoemaker had
surveyed some of the boundaries in con.
troversy. Messrs. Hugh Edwards, Will
liam Maxim, James Ross, Thomas Mahan,
Daniel ]. Mcdonald. Philip Boreing,
William Lean, Martha Mckay, George
Mckay, George W. Bash were also called
to the witnes stand in rebuttal for plain
| tiff.
Court then adjourned until Bpm.
TUESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION.
Court called at Bpm. Judge Krebs on
the Bench.
Veaire ordered to be issued by Judge
Johnston, for special term of Court be be-
gin on the third Monday of September.
Trial of Mckay VS.. Anderson resumed,
and examination of witnesses for PLAIN
tiff in rebuttal continued.
Scott Hileman VS.. John w. TroxeI.
Plaintiff took non suit.
Kate Mcintyre VS.. George Mcintyre.
Discontinued.
Use of B. G. Knepper VS.. VIM. Knep-
per ct. al. Defendant confessed iudg-
ment for S295.1s.
George Bolts VS.. Borough of Ashville.
Plaintiff took non suit.
Testimony on suit of Mckay VS.. Ander-
son being closed, counsel cited authorities
to the Court and proceeded to argue the
case before the jury. A. V. Barker, Esq,
counsel for defendant, restated the cause
of dispute between the plaintiff and his
client. The latter having purchased
tract OF land from the former known as
the Young property in Cambria township,
was deceived as to piece of timber land
which he believed at the time to belong
to the purchase. and on strength of this
Misrepresentation claimed release from
payment of $780, with interest vet due
on the land. Counsel argued it was not
a question of boundaries but whether the
defent has right to rebate in purchase
money on account of this misrepresenta.
ton. 1t had been proven that Mckay in
showing Anderson the Young tract had
showed him land not belonging to the
Young tIact and that was the principle
inducement for them to purchase the land.
1t was not material to the defendants
cause whether Mckay unwillingly or
willfully deceived Anderson, as to
the line, it is enough to know
that he did mislead him causing him an
actual loss for all he claims and more too.
Geo. M. Reade, Esq, Counsel for plain
tiff took the ground that when man goes
to buy land he is governed by common
sense. When he buys, he first ascertains the
boundaries of the land then the value
and makes his purchase accordingly. He
proceeded to show that Mr.. Anderson
was not mistaken as to the boundaries of
the land, but when he saw this timber land
outside his boundaries he thought he
ought to have it, and refuses to pay the
last 800 due on the land because he did
not get it. He said Mr.. Anderson took
the deed from Mr.. McKay-the same tract
decided to Mr.. Mckay by Mr.. Young, and
now the defendant says he will not pay
for it because he has been deceived.
Such plea is preposterous, absured.
This defence is an afterthought, Mr.. An.
derson knew where this line was and all