The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1897-05-18

moQG tQaL the case OF Atkinson VS.. marcy
should be tried before the court without
jury, but counsel for defence on Tues
day claimed that he did not understand
the matter that way. The court decided
that if the defence could prove that no
such agreement was made, the case would
go before jury.
No cases being ready for trial the court
took recess until yesterday morning.
The petit jurors appeared on Wednesday,
and after answering roll call were dis
charged by the clerk for the week.
Judge Gaskill held court on Saturday
and considered applications for license.
The following were granted:
HOTELS
NJ. s. Butterworth, Mount Holly, $500
Benjamin W. Zelley, +" 800
Charles G. Coles, Moorestown, 200
Samuel s. Dagger, 200
Frank Lightcap, Medford, $50
Charles A. Braddock, Vincentown, $50
Adam Lofink, Riverside, $50
Rudolph + Stecher, &c $50
Richard Mueller, $50
Charles Sack, &c $50
Elizabeth Donovan" $50
Walter S. Davis, Lumberton, $50
Brose E. Smith, Wrightstown, $50
Grant DAVIS, Centreton, 100
John II. Murphy, Reck1esstown, 125
William f. Parker, Florence, 175
Henry Grant, Cookstown, l25
j. Praul Rue, Birmingham Inn, 100
Samuel S. Witcraft, Evesboro, l25
William f. Bishop, Cookstown, 125
Michael b. Quinn, Delanco, $50
SALOONS.
James Martin Mount Holly, $500
Joseph X. Tuley, 200
WHOLESALE
George W Collier Rising Sun Square, 500
James 2. Nicholes, Mount Holly, 200
Shafer & O'Neil, Palmyra, $50
When the name of Henry Grant was
called, Charles K. Chambers entered an
objection against granting license on the
ground that James Ravens, the former
proprietor, left the hotel over a year ago
and that Grant had since been selling
liquor without license.
Prosecutor Budd, on behalf of Grant,
called the courts attention to rule which
required all objections or remonstrances
to be filed with the court on or before the
first Friday of the term. In this case the
limit had expired.
Judge Gaskill said that the rule would
be adhered to, but he saw no reason why
it should not be broken in cases where it
is known there has been an open violation
of law. Mr.. Budd did not think the law
had been violated. Ravens had not
abandoned sold or leased the hotel.
Grant had been selling as his agent and
had turned the receipts oyer to him.
In view of these facts Judge Gaskill de-
cided to grant the license.
remonstrance was presented against
granting license to Lee A. Stroud, of
Pointville, on the ground that he had not
observed the law. The case will be heard
on Saturday, May 20.
The court then took up the application
of Curtis Dayis to keep hotel at Pember-
ton. Written objections had been filed
against this application on the ground
that the court had no jurisdiction, the
licensing power being vested in the Bor-
ough council.
Samuel A. Atkinson appeared on be-
half OF Mr.. Davis, and argued that the
general borough law passed by the last
Legislature repealed all previous legisla-
ton on that subject and wiped it out of ex-
istence. In support of this proposition
Mr.. Atkinson called attention to the fact
that no election was held in Pemberton
on the day that it should have occurred
because the citizens believed the law I'M
der which they had formerly acted was
repealed, and he also said it was reported
that the Borough would soon be under
township regulations.
Jacob c. Hendrickson argued for the OBJ
iections. He said the new law only re-
pealed such acts as were inconsistent with
it. The law under which Pemberton ex-
listed was not of that character. It did
not conflict in any way with the act, and
the licensing power was not disturbed.
Judge Gaskill reserved bis decision.
Yesterday morning, before Judge Miller,
the action of Clarence Giberson, by william
Giberson, Jr, his next friend, VS.. Ernest
Haines, was tried before jury.
This is a civil suit for damages for Injuries
sustained by young Giberson, who was Sc
rlously wounded by the discharge of gun
in the hands of Ernest Haines. The occur
renee took place last September on Capt
Martin L. Haines' cranberry bog in Wood
land township.
There was party of young boys ana girls
playing cards one. evening in the main cram
berry building where some of the pickers
Slept. They were playing old maid, and when
young Haines entered with another pack of
cards, he suggested a game of seven-up. Gil
6erson and another boy were troze out by not
understanding this game. They sat at the
table, laughed, chatted, and then began to
give away the cards held by the girls, one OF
whom said If they did not behave they would
have to go out. Haines opened the door and
the manner of their leaving was described by
conflicting, testimony. few minutes after
tnis small boy began to carelessly handle a
gun that was in the room. 1t was passed to
Haines by request, and while he tried to
break the weapon to see If it was loaded, the
shell which It contained was discharged
There was no shot In 1T, but the charge of
powder passed through the window shutter
and lodged in the left side of the face of
Clarence Giberson, blackening his flesh SINCE
ing his hair, lacerating his skin and prod1c-
ing painful wound from which he suffered
tor two weeks or more. His eye was closed
for week, and then DR.. Sharp, of Medtord
took Clarence to the Wills Eye Hospital at
Philadelphia.
The claim of plaintiff was that the boy was
shot as the result of a threat made by young
Aaines, but this was contradicted by those
who were present. Charles X. Chambers rep
resented the plaintiff, and Jacob C. Hendrick-
son the defence.
The case will be given to the jury this morn
ing.