Bridgeton pioneer., 1897-07-15

tney must not nnd any Paris green
around there. The confession of each of
them was made in Jail, and each signed
the confession in the presence of three
witnesses. The Prosecutor offered the
confession in evidence.
Lewis Winrow was called in his own
defence, and denied poisoning the horse.
He also denied making any such con-
fession as was offered in evidence. He
said that the Saturday night the horse
was poisoned he and his wife went to bed
between eight and nine O'Clock and never
got up until seven O'Clock the next morn
ing. During his testimony, Lewis got
quite dramatic and exclaimed, "Gentle
men, I'm telling the truth before Cod.
I've served him for fifteen years and I'm
glad he knows Pm telling the truth
When Court convened this morning the
appeal case of Duffield VS.. Joslin was re-
sumed. The case is one of trespass and
it happened on what is known as the
"Muskrat Farm" of Jack Duffield, of
Cedarville. 1t was in evidence that Duf-
field bad rented a part of his farm to
Burrows, Joslin reserving certain piece
of marsh which he called his musk rat
farm, and that the private grounds were
entered and rats caught on it.
Several witnesses testified that they
had seen the trespasser on the ground
1t appeared that the agreement between
Duffield and Joslin was merely verbal
one.
Mr. Logue in opening the case for Mr..
Joslin said that there was none of the
ground reserved by Mr.. Duffield as they
would show. That Joslin rented or
leased the farm off Mr.. Duffield without
any of it being reserved.
Mr.. Joslin was called and said he rent
ed the farm from off Mr.. Duffield one day
while in his sitting room, in the presence
of his wife.
The agreement between them in refer
mouth only, no reservation of any kind
being made, and he supposed he was
renting all the farm. He was to farm for
one half the proceeds. The marsh in
question was only used for pasture and
Illustrating.
Mrs. Joslin corroborated the testimony
of her husband in reference to renting
the farm, saying that there was no reseva-
ton being made by Mr.. Duffield.
Friday Morning.
Several other witnesses testified il the
Duffield-Dawson case in Court yesterday.
To show that Dawson thought h1 had
! rented the entire farm, he had rented to a
man named Newcomb privilege to trap
muskrats on the marsh, and had given
him written agreement ID that effect:
but afterwards, Newcomb received notice
from Mr., Duffield, the owner of the farm,
to desist from trapping on this ground.
Then he was arrested, and the result OF
his hearing before a Cedarville Justice,
he was discharged on no cause for
action.
Dawson's brother also trapped on this
marsh by permission of Burrows, the
lessee of the farm, and never knew but
that he had a perfect right to do so.
James Ware, E-q, counsel for the
plaintiff, recalled Mr.. Dufield, who ex-
planned the terms of the agreement he
made with Burrows Dawson, reserving
the entire farm of over four hundred
acres, except that which he leased, verb
| ally, to Mr.. Dawson, and named the diff
ferent kinds of crops he should put in
and raise, all the rest of the farm he held
in reservation.
| But Mr.. Dawson did not understand it
this way; neither did Mrs. Dawson,
and thereby hung the tale, which is a
good pointer to owner and lessee of prop
erty, that verbal agreement is not as
safe as one put down in black and white
and sworn to.
Another appeal case came up for set
tlement. 1t was that of Mrs. Ruth Reeves
against her husband, Albert S. Reeves,
Hon. Thomas w. Trenchard defended
Mrs. Reeves and James Potter. Esq,
appeared as counsel for Mr.. Reeves.
The case is one in which Mrs. Reeves
had her husband arrested for non-sup
port, making the complaint before John
H. Elwell, Overseer of Poor, on Feb
ruary Sth. She charged her husband
with i'll treatment and not providing for
herself and two small children.
Mrs. Reeves was called. In her testi-
mony she said that her husbands treat
ment towards her was terrible, that he
had beat her and knocked her over a
sewing machine and threatened to kill
her. She said she was willing to live
with him if he would treat her right.
She had never refused to live with him.
All he had given her was an order for
81 60 on glasshouse store and money to
buy one of the children a pair of shoes.
This was all she had had from him since
January. Then she went to live with her
mother, where she is at present.
Mrs. Hannah Peters, mother of Mrs.
Reeves, was called and said her daughter
lived with her, and that Mr.. Reeves
never provided for her.
| Charles Hanes, of Camden, was called
and testified to Mr.. Reeves i'll treatment
of his wife when they visited him at his
home in Camden. MIR. Hanes brought
Mrs. Reeves home.