The Monmouth inquirer., 1894-04-26
Monmouth County Courts.
BEFORE JUDGES coNovER. MORRIS
AND HIGGINS.

BEFORE JUDGES CONOVER, MORRIS
AND HIGGINS.
Thursday, April 19th.-The appeal
case II, of John l.. Schneider VS. M.
l.. Sweet, and 20, of Howard N. Ash
man VS. VIM. Stout, were postponed
until April 25th.
No response was given in tie ap-
peal case 80, of Chas. F. Schleith VS.
The Long Branch Commissioners
when called for trial
The appeal case 40, of Eugene
Smith VS. Thos. A. Roberts went off
for the term.
In the appeal case %, of Catharine
Hanratty VS. Gowdy IL Pitcher. mo
ton was made by John T. Hawkins,
counsel of Gowdy & Pitcher, that
the order restraining execution be
discharged. The motion was oppos
ed by Claude Guerin, who represent
ed Hanratty. The grounds upon
which Mr.. Hawkins made the mo.
tion was that no appeal had been
taken. Mr.. Guerin stated that the
appeal bond had been given, but
the other papers were missing. He
made motion asking for reinstate-
ment OF the case, which was denied
The court ordered the order restrain
ing execution set aside.
In the matter of the rule to show
cause why the license granted to
Chas. Green and transferred to Theo
dore Dorlacher for the East View
Annex, at the Highlands OF Nave
sink, should not be revoked, return
able to-day, was heard. Counsellor
Henry s. Terhune presented affida-
Wits to the court purporting to have
been made by different persons who
had signed the petition asking the
court to revoke said license, for q
withdrawal of their names from the
petition, stating that they did not at
the time of signing the same, know
what was in it. The court held that
the signing of the petition by these
persons, gave them the right to act.
Frederick A. Heisiey, representing
the petitioners, called several wit
nesses among whom were Edward
Layton, Bai Jley McGarley and Dan
iel Clevenger, who testified to buy
ing beer and whiskey at the hotel
on Sundays since March 1S. Daniel
Layton another witness testified to
being in the bar-room of the hotel
on Sundays, but said he did not see
oily OCCI Vi W11ShCY E0lA Vi QlO uOl
buy any himself. The court ordered
that the license be revoked and that
Dorlacher pay the costs. The court
called the attention of the Prosecu-
Tor as to the way the hotel had been
conducted.
In the appeal case ia, of Frank
Thomas VS. Jennie Wilson, the appel
lee not appearing, motion was made
hU fncnnh Mo Dopsp r.fT al frNYu r ta
for a non suit, which was
granted.
In the matter of the rule to show
cause why new trial should not be
granted in the case of the State VS.
Nicholo Rungo, charged with com
all assault and battery on
Chas. II. Lundy on Nov. 1st in Ocean
Counsellor w. s. B. Par
ker. who represented Rungo, pre-
sented evidence to the court which
had been taken before Wilbur Heis-
ley at Long Branch, purporting to
be new evidence and a surprise. As
sistant Prosecutor A. E.Johnston OPP
posed the rule upon the grounds
that the counsel for defendant had
not shown any new evidence and
that there was no surprise. 1t seems
that the defendant testified on March
1st, when he was tried and convicted
that he was at Scobeyville on Nov.
1st, the day on which the assault oc
Cured, buying potatoes of William
Hance. Mr.. Hance was produced
by the State and testified to selling
the defendant potatoes at different
times, but stated that the last he
sold him was in October. He stated
that the defendant and another man
came to his farm one day and want
ed him to make an affidavit to the
effect that the defendant was at his
place Nov. lst. After telling them
what he knew in regards to the mat
ter, they decided not to take his aft
davit and left. The court reserved
decision.
The appeal case IS, of Catherine
Saugerton VS. John Steinbach was
tried before the court and Judgment
This suit was brought by
Steinbach against Mrs Saugerton to
recover the sum of $34. S4 claimed to
be due upon a book account. Rufus
Cook, on the part of the appellee,
testified to the state of demand being
q correct account of the book ac-
count; he upon ross-examination
could not swear whether the debt
had been or whether it mad nos been
paid. Mrs. Saugerton testified that
she did not contract such debt, but
that it was her husbands, she stated
that she had given Steinbach notice
that she would not be liable for his
debts. John f. Hawkins represent
ed the appellant and Claude Guerin
the appellee.
In the appeal case 9,of James O'Hag-