Bridgeton pioneer., 1895-10-17

She first told him no, that she did not
care to be married then, but he kept on
teasing, until she finally gave him an
answer, and he proposed they go away
and be married, He went to Millyille
and arranged for boarding place before
he took her. She said she had told Nabb
her age. The went to Mr.. Traders to
board, and after they had supper they
went out and were married.
Friday Afternoon.
The defense in the Nabb abduction case
was so ridicuously, that the peo-
pie IN the Court House almost pitied
Nabb for standing trial. He declared he
believed that the Perry girl was of age,
and that she had repeatedly told him she
was eighteen years old. When ques-
toned about having been married before
Nabb denied that he had, notwithstand-
ing his deserted wife was present and
looking him square in the eve. The ar
gu1nents of counsel and the charge of the
court were brief, and it was but a few
minutes after retiring that the jury agreed
that Nabb was guilty and SO reported in
court.
More chicken thieves, or alleged ''poul-
try robbers came next, when Joseph
Scherer and William Jaggers were
waltzed in for trial. Of course they de-
clared they were innocent, but the Prose-
cutor had other ideas and proceeded to
divulge the case of the people to the jury.
1t not apparent who were the origi-
nal owners of the chickens, but it was de-
veloped that Jaggers and Scherer were in
possession, by system of subletting of
a barn on Orange street, belonging to
Mrs. Moses Mulford. Tt was shown fur
ther that visitor to this barn found lot
of chickens and a couple of bags OF
chicken feathers. They seemed to be the
the property of Scherer and Jaggers, and
they were not known to be in the chicke
raising business. One night the poultry
was moved from the barn in buggy,
and taken to Jaggers' house.
The State continued the case to some
disadvantage because the evidence was
not get-at-able. The statements of the
defendants, taken in writing before the
justice, were presented and read. The
statement showed that Scherer had moth
ing to do with the chickens. They be.
longed to Jaggers, and he compelled Jag.
gers to remove them from a barn which
was rented by Scherer.
The State rested, and T. w. Trenchard,
for Scherer, moved that the defendant
be acquitted, upon the ground that the
State Rad failed to prove that there. hac
been any larceny whatever.
James S. Ware, for Jaggers, added his
argument to the motion in favor of his
client.
Prosecutor Logue resisted the motion
trennously, and the Court refused to
order the jury to acquit.
In opening up the case for the defense
Mr.. Ware said the case seemed to him tx
be as the Prosecutor had limited to him
one of "magnified suspicion" And as
matter of fact it did seem that way.
There was not much defense, because
as the counsel put it, there was not much
to defend from. Scherer admitted tha
there were chickens in his barn, but they
had been brought there by Jaggers.
Jaggers claimed that he did not know
anything about the chickens, and neve
saw them. That was the case that wa
given to the jury.
After wrestling with the case for som,
time, the jury returned verdict of guilty
against both Jaggers and Scherer. Th,
jury evidently believed in conviction
upon general principles, rather thar
upon evidence presented.
Tuesday Morning.
The first case called this morning by
Prosecutor Logue, in the Criminal Court
before Judge Hoagland, was that of tn,
State against Howard Shull, the des
perado of the lower part of the county.
Shull was brought in from the jail anc
was seated beside his counsel, j. L. Van
Syckel. Only the handouts on his wrist:
indicated anything of the de5perado abou
him. He was neatly dressed in DARK
blue suit, and wore nice pointed shoes
his face had a very intelligent look, bu
his appearance was more surly thar
pleasant. His clean shirt and ic,adills
collar gave him quite a gentleman look
His trial on this indictment was for the
breaking and entering the cabin of the
oyster boat of Belford Candy, the sc. B
Mason," and stealing therefrom goods tc
the value of $13.
Eelford Candy was first called. He has
turned States evidence against Shull, fol
he was arrested on other charges with the
desperado, but was not in5 cted. He SAID
he had been the owner of the oyster boat
&c. b. Mason;" she was robbed while
lying in the Oronoco creek in July 1894
He discovered the robbery and found that
the lock had been broken and the slide
turned up.
A 2-inch line, worth S., pair of oyster
tongs worth S., and bed quilts, worth
about ~ had been taken away. He didn't
know who took them until he was told.
Samuel Jenkins knew the boat, sc. B.
IL In.J