Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1901-03-21


Witnesses were Thomas Schuyler, John
e'Los. Dye, Constable Thomas Bailey
and other residents of Limestone town.
snip. The witnesses sought to prove
that Mrs. Dyes house was one Of i'll 70.
pute and that illicit relations existed he
tween her and Benjamin Severcol.
Among the witnesses for the defense
was Edward Dye, husband of the de.
Iendant. He admitted that relations
oet"een himself and his wife had been
somewhat strained for awhile, but stat
ed that he did not doubt her honor. He
attributed the estrangement to med.
olng nelghbors. He said he fondly loved
MS wife and children and would have
accompanied them when they went to
harrisburg, but be was warned by sew
eral' whose names he gave, that if he
iolioWed them, he would get "in boxn
oy which he understood he would not
come back alive. He even had been
warned not to appear on the stand in
oehalf OF his wife during the present
| trial.
haiph kisner appeared for Mrs. Dive
aud Z. ii. Weaver and District ATTORNEY
Welsh conducted the prosecution. The
testimony was of a very spicy variety
which together with good bit of spar.
ring on the part of the attorneys kept
the interest up at fever heat.
The jury after half an hours delibera.
ton returned verdict of "guilty,"
Whereupon Ralph Kisner, attorney for
the defendant, made motion for ar.
rest of judgment and a new trial. reas-
ons to be filed within the rules of court,
Harry Shipe, on whose information
action was brought against Benjsmin
severcol, acquitted on Monday, was the
prosecutor in the case against Mrs. Dye.
Ihe part he was to play in the present
court, however, was not yet ended and
another case was announced with Mrs.
Dye as defendant in which he was pros-
ecutor.
In this action Mrs. Dye was charged
with receiving stolen property consisting
OF three chickens, horse blanket and
two scythes purloined, it was alleged, on
the night of July 5, 1900, when her NOV.
ing took place. Robbins and Shipe, who
with severcol, made up the moving
party, were chief witnesses. They we're
willing enough to admit that the articles
were stolen during the trip from this
city to Limestoneville and swore that
they were left at Mrs. Dyes home.
Mrs. Dye denied on the stand that
she bad seen any of the articles named.
Her testimony was sustained by Ralph
Seidel, owner of the lap robe stolen, who
had sworn out search warrant and fail
ed to find any of the articles on the
premises.
The jury was out only short time,
bringing in verdict of mot guilty" and
placing the costs ON the prosecutor,
Harry shipe.
Benjamin Severcol, who was held for
half the costs of the case in which he
was acquitted, owing to the long time
he had lain in jail was exonerated from
payment and discharged. At the same
time Harry Shipe and Harry Robbins,
whose sentence was suspended at Oc-
tober court, were dismissed from Gus
tody.
The next case called was that of Com
monwealth vs.. Gilbert N Fenstermach-
er, the charge being desertion and nom
support. The hearing had not proceed
ed far when court adjourned.
The case of Commonwealth VS. Gilbert
N. Fenstermacher, the charge desertion
and non-support, which came up before
court Tuesday evening, occupied nearly
the entire forenoon yesterday.
The prosecutor in the case was the
wife, Abigail Fenstermacher, the daught-
er of David d. Williams of this city. In
her testimony, which was supported by
four other witnesses, the following facts
were adduced: The couple we're marri-
ed in April, 1889, and are the parents of
two children, aged and 10 years re-
spectively. Mr.. and Mrs. Fenstermach.
er did not get along we'll together, the
troubles eliminating in separation in
1891. The testimony on both sides, al.
though widely divergent on most essen
tials agreed on one point-that on the
night of December 81 of the year above
named Mrs. Fenstermacher locked her
husband out of the house. The husband
took mortal otfense at this sand went to
the home of his parents where he has
since resided most of the time. To justi-
fly her action Mrs. Fenstermacher ex-
planned that her husband had made
''threats" and that on the night in ques-
ton he acted strangely so that she lock-
ed him out as matter of self-protec-
ton. During the years of her separa-
ton, she testified, she has made the liv-
ing for herself and children, her hus-
band refusing to contribute to their sup
port.
Twenty witnesses appeared for the de-
fendant, testifying as to his industrious
habits and general good character. His
testimony fatty contradicted that of his
wife, especially the part which related
to "threats" and improper conduct on
the night he was locked out.
Judge Little said he would reserve
decision until the next term of court. In
the interim, he informed the defendant,
he would be expected to contribute to
the support of his two children accord
ing to his ability.
Hon. II. NJ Hinckley appeared for
Mrs. Fenstermacher and Ralph kisner
represented the defendant.
The case of Peter Weaver VS.. thdP. 6
r. railway company, an action in, tres
pass, was called for trial just before noon.
=, oF ho Pan Iinn