Bridgeton pioneer., 1896-06-04


with assault and battery on Charles
Neiplin. J. L. VanSyckel, ESQ.,, repre-
sented Young Trough.
Charles Neipling was first on the stand
and said that he lived next to Trough
and on the 18th of last March he had
difficulty with Trough, when he struck
him in the back of the head with his fist.
Mrs. Neiplin corroborated her hus-
bands testimony.
The case was one of a quarrel between
Neiplin's and the Trough's which has
been going on for several years.
Mrs. Surran, neighbor, saw the blow
struck.
Mr.. VanSyckel said he would show
that Neiplin was quarrelsome mali,
and that he troubled the Troughs.
Edgar Trough told of the difficulty on
the day in question and said that Trough
struck him with shovel on the leg and
he pushed them away when his hat fell
off. Trough said Mrs. Surran did not see
the fuss.
After hearing more testimony, Judge
Hoagland discharged Trough.
Judge Hoagland then sentenced Albert
Morrison to one year in State Prison at
hard labor.
Lewis T. Sheppard, forger, was given
five years in State Prison at hard labor
and then until costs of prosecution are
paid.
William Werschesky, who was con-
victed of illegal sale ofliquor, was granted
new trial.
Wednesday Morning.
An adjourned session of Court was held
the bench.
The Judge was jury too, the State and
defense agreeing that the necessity of a
jury was not imperative in these two in
stances.
The two cases were the Stase against J..
Christian Kienzle, charged with keeping
a disorderly house. The other was
against Margaret Kelly, charged with the
same offense.
By request of the defense, Miss Lizzie
Loper was in Court as official stenog-
rapher.
The first case moved was against Mr.
Kienzle. a
Orestes Cook, the lawyer, who lives on
the Shiloh pike, near the bottling estab-
lishment of Mr.. Kienzle, said he had
for more than a year been greatly annoyed
by drunken men coming from the direc-
ton of Mr.. Kienzle's place. These men
were cursing and in other ways making
dictprbonooS OpJv onoo d;d 1,o .oo -, -,
coming from the place directly. Mr.
Cook complained to Mr.. Kienzle, and the
defendant declared that these men did
not come from his place.
Mr.. Cook further testified that the dis
order had been so great that he had COM
planned to the Mayor and asked fo1
police protection for that neighborhood
Mr.. Cook also said that Kienzle's place
was the only one where liquor could be
obtained in that immediate neighbor.
hood.
Joseph Burt who lives within couple
of hundred feet of Kienzle's place, said
that he had known considerable disorder
about that neighborhood. People would
congregate upon Mr.. Burt's property and
drink and carrouse all night. The next
morning Mr.. Burt would gather up the
bottles and take them to Mr.. Kienzle
who received them as his. Mr.. Burt had
complained to Kienzle of these disorders
but Mr.. Kienzle declared that he was not
responsible. He had seen men and
women going from this bottling estab-
lishment with beer. The disorder, ours
ing and swearing had been very OBJ
jectionable to Mr.. Burt and his family
Sometimes the disorders would occur
right on the Kienzle property.
Wilbert j, Brooks, another neighbor,
said that the disorder, and debauchery
out on the pike in the vicinity of Kienzle's
place, was so great that it was very
serious objection to himself and family,
so much so that his wife was afraid to
stay at home alone Saturday nights. He
had seen these men go in Kienzle's
place, and come out again.
James Chapman gave some testimony
of like nature.
Baron Parvin said he had seen much
disorder there. He had seen drunken
men in Kienzle's place, and he had seen
drunken men drinking there.