Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1900-01-11
LEGAL NEWS.



the following cases were reported settled
Darius Hutchinson vs. Chas Nhlt-
mire trespass; Jas. Murray vs Mrs j.
/ Cooper. replvin.
I The trials of assumpsit suits of c. X.
Ray, a Ray. and Archie Watson
/ against W. l.. Curtis were continued
/ from the 18th to the 18th inst
( The first case tried was that Of Mrs.
/ Martha I Liebler, widow of the late
/ Joseph Liebler, VS. the Metropolitan
/ Life Ins Co. to force the company 10
| pay her $1,000 policy which her hus-
| band held ut the time of his death. The
defence was that the premiums had not
| been paid when due thus making the
/ policy void. Later the premiums were
| rendered but not accepted The jury
gave the plaintiff verdict for Sl02l ~,
principal and interest. The case VIII
I likely be carried to the Supreme Court.
Thomas Smith, of Butler twp,
F., bought what he supposed was yearl,
! ing colt from liveryman Henry Bickel
| for S22. He afterwards found ont the
colt" was a three-ye yearold pony and
sued Bickel on his guarantee. At the
trial Tuesday the jury gave Smith
verdict for s19. 33.
The damage suit of Elizabeth Nc
Cafferty VS. the Penna r. R. Co. which
was throagh the Supreme Court twice
and was to be tried next Monday has
been settled for $500, the railroad pay
ing the costs.
The assumpsit suit Of Edward Dam
bach Of Evans City vs. ID. NJ. Aiken to
recover $50 on a note for which the deft.
showed a receipt and which receipt the
plf said was forged was tried Tuesday
and verdict given for the deft.
The eiectment suit of Saml Beam vs.
Edward Gardner, was continued after
going to trial.
Jacob L. Shakeley's suit against the
p. d w. railroad for damages to his
house ut Eideneau has been settled.
A Jury was sworn Wednesday in the
| suit of Ulrich Winter of Eideneau vs.
the r. & w railroad to recover large
damages claimed to be done his mill
property. This morning the jury was
| put on p. 6c w. train and taken down
| to view the premises.
The suit Of David Wilson of Mercer
/ vs. w. D. Bari of Slipperyrock occupied
| the attention of the Court nearly ali
| Tuesday and Wednesday. 1t was
| brought TO recover Sl4G0 which Wilson 5
attorney S. f. Thompson of Mercer had
| loaned to Bard on a Judgment note
| Bard defense was that he had paid the
| debt to Thompson, but the latter had
never had the Judgment satisfied The
| jury brought in verdict for the delft
The trespass suit Of Margaret C.
| Brownfield VS. Clearfeld twp. for $4,000
damages injuries sustained by driving
into an unguarded railroad cut during
! the Feb 1899 blizzard, went TO trial
Yesterday This morning the jury was
| taken out on a special b. r. q p train
to see where the accident occurred.
The trespass suit of J. NJ. Steinbrook
vs. Russell has been continued
| The case of Jas Moore vs w. 81 l..
| Demit, was discontinued because the
| plf. did not appear.
The Simcox VS. DeWoody, suit was
/ continued until Feb. 27.
The following cases are for trial next
week:
Monday Elizabeth McCafferty VS.
| Penna r. r., trespass Huldah Mahon
vs. r. A Mahon exr assumpsit; Traveller
| Fence Co. VS. Brown ct al, assumpslt;
Frank Smith VS. Conkle ct al, assumpsit
Tuesday JAS Moore VS. VIM & l..
Dermit ejectment; John Ritchey vs.
| Hummer 81 Hoehn, replevin; Il. Nj.
| Wolf & Co. VS. Faucet etal, 'assumpsit;
| Geo Ebert vs Mars borough. trespass;
| Mary Dambach VS. Adelia PETER, as
sumpsit.
Wednesday CAN'T & Ash VS. p. w.
| r r. damages; Rachel a Humes vs
Henry Lentz also vs. VIM Roessle, test
| of title to goods seized; John Noel vs.
| Union Cemetery Co. trespass; David ).
Criswell vs. Josiah NJ, Wigton assump-
| sit.
Thursday Geo K Marshall vs. For
rest Oil Co ejectment; VIM Bundy vs
p. d w Ry. Co. damages; Maggie
| Abel ys Rose b. Copley, slander; David
| Meals, J f. Meals and John w. Flem-
ing w Christian Stoner, trespass @
suits.
Friday-W r. Brown vs Dixon ct al
and Butler twp poor district, assump-
sit; Yost ct al W j. II. McCaiferty, as
| sumpsit.
NEW SUITS
| William II. Martin Va Findley B.
| Dodds and w NJ Starr summons in
eiectment for G5 acres in Penn twp.
| Robt and Jacob Cooper vs. John and
| Uriah Cooper ct al, summons in parti-
ton for the property of the late James
Cooper on Jackson St Evans City.
Simon e"d Bell G. Barriclsman OF
Butler twp vs. Butler Borough, sum
mons in tresspass claiming $4,000 dam
ages for each Of the plfs for injuries
sustained by Mrs Barrckman last Sep
tember when her horse scared at COW
near George Stamm's barn in the West
End, upset the buggy and threw her
over an embankment, hurting her back
and shoulder 1t IL claimed that the
place was unguarded and dangerous
Washington twp. and VIM Barber
and d. L. Hutchinson vs. Harmon Seaton,
tax collector in 1S035 and ID. H. Shira
and John G. Clark his bondsmen, as
sumpsit for 1896. 40 road tax which the
plfs claim was collected and not PAID
over,
Eliza Blaine, Of Butler, vs. the j. &
w railroad, summons in tresspass fol
100000 damages. Mrs. Blaine's son
William w was the p. & w fireman
who was killed while in his cab by Q
board projecting from passing freight
, train striking him and passing through
his body. The suit is to recover for his
death
|. g. Pollard w J. s. Mattison, l.. s.
Hoon, David Roberts, N. Z. Stewart
trustees of the Gospel Prohibition
, church of Renfrew. appeal by defts
from Judgment of 81 rendered by X
b. Gilghrist j. Z.
) John w Lee, of Mars, vs Fannie G
Lee, petition for divorce They were
married by the Allegheny Go. Clerk Of
: Courts in 1890 and in 1897 he obtained 8
divorce from his wife on grounds oi
adultery They were later Remarked
and divorce is asked for in this case OF
: account of alleged adultery with Chas
Heater and cruelty. They have two
children, aged Z and years.
NOTES.
During trial for murder in n New
York Court last week, mercury poisoni
were manufactured in the Court room
Il. w Breast of Washington twp
was arrested Mt Huntington reforma
tory Thursday by Sheriff Hoon on
charge of larceny made by X. l.. Kirk
patrick Breast is the young man wh'
in the summer of 1898 got goods frou
, jewellers Cleland and Kirkpatrick an'
kept them.
All the previous decisions of the Su
r preme Court are said to have been II
- favor of the land owner but the las