The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-06-07

easy cases at adjourning time In
both instances the defense was soft
stuff and spite.
Jacob Venus charged that Z. ]. Ly-
mott and Ignatz Oleschefsk kept a
saloon on Oak street and did a big
business. Five witnesses told in posi-
tive terms that they bought beer and
whiskey there on different occasions,
and also that they were permitted to
gamble at cards. dice and pool on
the defendants premises.
The defendants would have the jury
believe that Venus and his witnesses
were sadly mistaken. Lynott denied
having any interest in the place fur
ther than he rented the pool tables
tn Oleschefski and occasionally
cropped in to collect mis- rent. Oles-
chefski corroborated Lynott in this
and for himself said that while it was
true he was the proprietor of the place
he never sold anything in the way
of drink excepting soft stun.
THE OTHER CASE.
The second case came from South
Washington avenue. Mrs. Brigetta
Schneider was the prosecutrix, and her
next door neghbor, James Gallagher,
the defendant.
Mrs. Schneider exhibited a bottle of
whiskcy, which she said was purchas-
ed at Gallagher's place March by
fourteen -year-old Charles Gremer, at
her special instance and request. She
saw the boy go in with the empty bot
tie and return with ii filled.
The boy had been suppoenaed, she
stated, but was not at hand. Her
nephew and grand nephew, Peter
Schneider and his nineteen year-old
son, Julius, from Little England,
however. were on deck with positive
testimony. April they went into
Gallagher's place and secured
nickel nip of whiskey and a glass of
beer, for which the father paid. They
We're sure it was whiskey and beer.
Mr.. Gallagher was the only witness
for the defense. He denied every
thing, alleged that the prosecution
was brought because Of some trouble
over a rooster which was stolen from
Mrs. Schneider. and averred that he
was the keeper of an innocent tea
store. He admitted that he sold soda
water, sarsaparilla and birch beer, but
not ginger ale or weiss beer. The
idea that he sold lager beer and
whiskey was preposterous. Judge
Savage asked him if he ever sold any
cold tea. He shook his head negative
lV.
In the assault and battery case in
whichW. w. Ruane was defendant and
Mary Dolan prosecutriX, the jury re-
TUNED a verdict of not guilty and
divided the costs evenly between the
two parties.
STARR AGAINST KAESTNER.
The assault and battery case Of
Fred Starr against Charles Kaestner,
the South Side hotel keeper, was given
to the jury by Judge Kelly just before
adjournment. Starr alleges that he
was thrown out of Kaestner's place
February 9 and so badly injured that
he was under a doctors care for ten
days. Kaestner denies throwing him
out He took him by the hand and
led him out and after reaching the
sidewalk was assaulted by Starr. In
defending himself he might have
struck a blow or two, he admitted.
The forgery case In which r. +.
Nelson was the defendant and II. S.
Pierce the prosecutor was mol pressed.
The alleged forged note has been lost
n verdict of not guilty was taken in
the larceny case in which Norris Pos
ner was charged with stealing 800 spools
of thread from the store of ,Adolph Mar
Gus, on Penn avenue. Posner claimed
the spoOls were given him by another
party, under an agreement that he was
to sell them on commission. The police
could not disprove this. and allowed
a verdict of not guilty to be entered.
a settlement was reported in the em-
bezzlement case against b. Frank
Marshall, in which r. S. Huhling was
prosecutor, and a verdict of not guilty
was entered. Marshall was accused Of
retaining money which he collected for
the Scranton Dairy company. He
claimed that it was a case of erratic
bookkeeping on the part of the COM
pany's accountants.
DIVORCE ENOUGH.
The assault and battery and surety
cases against John Mehl, prosecuted by
his recently divorced wife, were mol
pressed, the wife being satisfied that
she had punished him sufficiently by
securing a legal separation from him
In the case in which Frank Ricca
'''''' SNA Aio ''Noiii' wa iGlCNd Win
an unspeakable offense against moral
ity the jury said not guilty, and Gi-
vided the costs between the two par
ties.
Lewis Steinberg, a boy whom the
police accused of stealing six pounds Of
candy and five pounds of nuts from a
Penn avenue stand, was returned not
guilty, the commonwealth not having
sufficient evidence at hand to go to
trial.
In the assault and battery case of
Charles ShummaK against Peter
Bushell, neither party appeared and
| the costs were placed on the prose-