Bridgeton pioneer., 1891-01-29

argument 10 tne jury, and at its con-
ciusion the Prosecutor said he did not
care to say anything to press for a
conviction.
Josiah Frambus was next put upoh
the rack, and the Court appointed
Hon. T. W. Trenchard to defend him.
The charge against Frambus was as
sault and battery. Just before the
jury was sworn, Josiah was brought
in from Jail, and told his counsel that
he..desired to retl act hisp plea not guilty,
and plead guilty to assault. The plea
was accepted and Mr.. Trenchard made
a statement for the benefit of the de-
fendant
The Frambus jury was then made a
jury to decide the guilt or innocence of
John Walker, who had been indicted
for assault and battery.
The jury did not get sworn before
Walker instructed his counsel, Mr..
Trenchard to retract his plea, and en-
ter one of guilty.
This jury, however, was not to be
allowed to depart without duty, and
the gentlemen were sworn to try
Susan Griner, who was charged with
cruelty to a child. Mr.. Trenchard
also represented this defendant.
Overseer of Poor, Harry A. Rice,
said that he had been called to investi-
gate the alleged cruelty. He said he
found that Susan had couple of chill
dren in the county Aims House, and
he desired to take the third one there
but she would not permit it. His de-
scription of the house of the woman,
showed that the house was a squallid
one, and there was no comfort for the
child. In Mr.. Rice's presence, the de-
fendant choked the child and cursed
it. He said Susan was not married,
and depended upon the boy for her
support.
The jury in the Mink disorderly
house case came in, and rendered a
verdict of not guilty.
Walter Sharp testified that he saw
the woman choking the child, but
from his testimony it would seem the
boy was terror.
Mrs. John Messick said she had seen
Susan endeavoring to correct the child
as she should. In the opinion of Mrs.
Messick the other was abused by the
children more than the child by the
mother.
Mrs. driner, the defendant, evidently
more or less mentally off, said in her
own defence that the child was incor-
rigible, and she never abused him.
The boy was thirteen years old.
In the opinion of G. X. Dare, the
letter carrier, the boy was bad one,
and he did not think the mo her was
abusive.
Seoriam Dubois, said that boy is a
holy terror" and he never saw Mrs.
Griner abuse him.
The jury returned a verdict of not
guilty without leaving the box.
In the case of the State against
Thomas Simmons, who was indicted
for assault and battery, Mr.. Mitchell
retracted the plea of not guilty and
entered plea of guilty.
The Prosecutor announced that all
of the witnesses in all cases excepting
the Stevens forgery case were dis
charged.
THURSDAY AFTERNOON.
One of the most interesting of the
| criminal cases of the term came now
1t was the case of the State against
| Ephraim s. Stevens and his wife, Lulo
| Stevens, who had been indicted by the
Grand Jury for forging and uttering
checks upon Mr.. Stevens grandmother
The defendants were represented by
Lawyers John s. Mitchell and James
s. Ware. Mr.. Stevens sat next to Mr.
Ware, and near him sat his wife, hold
ing in her arms an infant babe. Hel
father and two sisters sat close beside
her.
There was no tronble in getting 8
jury. The State exercised three chal
lenges, and the defense, one.
Mr.. Logue opened his case carefully
and called to the stand, F. M. Riley
| cashier of the Cumberland National
Bank. On the 9th of Oct. Rhoda B.
| Smith had an account, which was held
for several years. A check was shown
the witness which he said was in his
hand writing. Mr.. Riley said that on
the 7th of October, check for like
amount was presented at the Bank
and there being some informalities in
its drawing declined to cash it. 1t was
presented at the bank by George
Wainwright. Mr.. Riley then drew ur
a check and gave it to Wainwright,
and he took it down to Cedarville, and
the next morning it came up properly
signed and the witness to Mrs. Smiths
signature was E. Lummis Smith. The