Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1891-10-08
forelady in 1856 and continued in that
capacity for several years.
TUESDAY AFTERNOON.

TUESDAY AFTERNOON.
Before Court adjourned the morn
ing session 1t had concluded the Cash
VS.. Hale case in SO far as the evidence
was concerned.
The witnesses sworn gave testimony
rs follows: 1
Mrs. Annie Marvin told the Court
that she was formerly forelady
at Belknap's shops, and Miss Cash
had taken her place, and held the
position of forelady and heusekeeper
She knew that Miss Cash should have
received So per week, and that many
times she did not get the money due
her. Mrs Marvin stated also that she
assisted Miss Cash in fitting herself for
the position of forelGdy.
Mrs. Frances Anderson declared
that she was fully acquainted with
the affairs especially pertaining to this
case. Miss Cash was foreiady and
housekeeper and earned $5 per week,
although she did not get it regularly.
Mrs. Elvira Elverson gave testi-
mony OF q similar nature, which was
very fiattering to Miss Cash's case.
Weight was added to the case of
Miss Cash by testimony of Miss Mary
Demmery,i.who stated that Miss Cash
was not paid regularly, and had fire.
quently heard Mr.. Belknap say that it
would be better for her to receive the
money all in lump.
The defenae opened its case by call
ing to the STAND, the defendant, Free
man 8. Hale, administrator Of the
estrte of the late Elias Belknap. His
testimony only went to show that he
was the administrator and had found
the receipts etc., thus far shown in the
case, among the effects Of the de-
ceased. s-.-.. $50 go.
Frederick Belnap, son Of the de.
ceased, said that. Miss CASH had upon
two occasions said to him that she
was mot receiving wages. That she
worked as housekeeper and made
some little extra money by working on
piece work in the slop.
Mrs. Fred. .Belknap corrohorated the
testimony of her husband, she being
present with her husband when Miss
Cash was making such statements.
The defense rested, and Miss Cash
was called by Mr.. Alvord to deny the
statements made by Mr.. and Mrs.
Fred Belnap, and the case went to the
Jury.
Judge Reed charged the Jury after
the noonsrecess and it retired under
the charge of Constable Bryant.
| A panel was then returned and the
Circuit Court case of Jacob P. Brick
against Lawyer T. W. Trenchard, ad.
ministrator, was taken up.
Mr.. Trenchard was represented by
Potter & Nixon conducting the de-
fense. Mr.. Brick was represented by
R. P. Tuller, Esq. ~.
This was an action to recover OF L.
w. Trenchard, administrator OF the
estate of w. J. Royal on a note of 1926
with accumulated interest, amounting
in all to 1854 35, on account of horse
sold by Mr.. Bird, to Mr.. Royal.
Jacob P. Brick was first placed upon
| the stand. He said he was real es-
| tate and horse dealer, etc.
Mr.. Tuller undertook to prove by
this witness the signature of w. j.
Royal to a certain note which was
! produced, but Col. Potter objected
and worked his objections 80 adroitly
that the attorney was obliged to take
Mr.. Mcbride from the stand and hunt
| up,another witness.
Frank J. Lore, who had lived with
Mr.. Royal five years, seven years ago,
was called, but he said he could not
remember Mr.. Royals handwriting
sufficiently to swear that the signature
to the note shown, was Royals. Mr.
Brick was recalled, bat for quite a
while the Col. got in such objections
to Mr.. Tuller's questions, that it looked
for awhile as though Mr.. Tuller would
make no headway in establishing any
case. Col Potter got the Vineland
lawyer on the run and kept him going
until he actually foundered in his
own questions. At last, however, he
wormed his way around to the point
where be could ask.
''If you would see the name of w. J.
Royal signed, you would know it,would
you?
"Yes, sir" was the answer Il should. :"
May it please the court" said Mr..
Tuller, II want to as k the witness
again, if he could identify Mr. Royals
signature to this note"
II object to any such question:" said
the watchful Col, and proceeded to
argue the point, and the court sus-
tanned.
III