Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1907-02-28
PROCEEDINGS Of
FEBRUARY Court


shortest on record. There were no bills
of indictment to go before the grand
jury, while tFe civil list narrowed
down to the two actions in trespass
brought by Simon Fleishman.
Court convened at 10 O'Clock with
his Honor Judge Evans and Associates
Blee and Welliver on the bench.
Charles Mohr of Anthony township,
John Freas of this city were excused
from serving on the traverse jury. Ed
ward V. Stroh, grand juror, was al
so excused.
Harry E. Trumbower was chosen
foreman of the grand jury, after which
Judge Evans delivered his charge to
that body. District Attorney Gearhart
then announced that there were no
cases for the grand jury, the prosecut-
or in the single case returned, which
involves assault and battery, being de-
tanned at home by illness. This case
Common wealth VS.. Harry Bomboy
ON direction of the court, was con-
tinued. The grand jury, therefore, had
no duties to perform beyond examin-
ing the public buildings of the coun-
ty. This duty was very expeditiously
performed and by II :45 O'Clock the
grand Jurors returned to the court
room and presented their report. The
latter was accepted and ordered filed,
after which the grand jurors, who had
been on duty just two hours, were dis
charged from further attendance at
court during this term.
The constables of the county being
called presented their reports. There
were none who had any violations of
the law to report. This was a cir
cumstance that seemed to crafty the
court very much, Judge Evans remark
ing that the showing was one that re-
hected credit upon the peace and good
order of the county.
Owing TO the absence of Mr.. Scarlet,
attorney for the defendant, the case of
Hugh McCaffrey VS.. the Danville and
Bloomsbury Street railway company
was continued. This reduced the list
OF civil cases down to the trespass &C
tious of Simon Fleishman brought
against Paul P. Swentek and Michael
Breckbill, which are all that are be-
fore court
The case of Simon Fleishman VS..
Paul P. Swentek was attached just be-
fore noon.
The case prove rather hotly con-
tested one, Hon. H. NJ. Hinckley and
E. S. Gearhart representing the plain
tiff and Hon. Grant Herring aud Will
liam Kase West appearing for the de-
fendant The case proved rather
complicated one and there was wide
divergence of testimony.
Z. s. Gearhart outlined the case to
the jury. The suit has been brought to
recover damages for stock of cloth
ing taken aud sold under landlord s
warrant The testimony showed that
the plaintiff, who is in the wholesale
stock jobbing business, in August of
1908, purchased the stock of dry goods
belonging to Dreifuss & Co., contain
ed in the store room of P. P. Swentek,
No. 295 Mill street. Fleishman paid
the rent due to Sept. /, which includ-
ed balance of 500. go due the landlord
from Dreifuss q Co. Thus far there
seems to be no difference or misunder-
standing between the parties
The result of the contention seemed
to hinge on the fact whether or not
Fleishman, the purchaser of Dreifuss
& Co.'S stock of goods, could be held
for the rent that would accure on
Dreifuss & Cos unexpired lease.
Fleishman testified that when he
bought out Dreifuss & Co. he had a
| distinct understanding with Mr..
Swentek that he was renting the store
room only from month to month and
that he was not to be held for rent any
longer than he found it profitable to
occupy the room.
The landlord on the other hand de-
MED the existence of any such an agree
ment and held that Fleishman was not
released from the lease OF Dreifuss &
| Co.
! He was determined that Fleishman
should be held for Dreifuss 81 Cos
lease and, therefore, when the plain
| tiff was on the point of discontinuing G
business here and removing his stock
of clothing from Danville the landlord
caused the stock of goods to be levied
! on under landlords warrant.
Mr. Fleishman, the plaintiff, who
was the first witness, testified that he
had a quantity of goods shipped here
! from Pittsburg, which he added to the
stock, purchased from Dreifuss & Co
The goods taken from him under land
lord S warrant by inventory, he said,
None of these goods he ever recover
ed When the goods were seized there
was no rent due aud in arrears.
A large portion of the afternoon was
spent in argument on motion for a
compulsory non suit made by Hon.
Grant Herring. Mr.. Herring held that
the plaintiff had mistaken his remedy
and should have brought au action in
replevin. He presented his argument
with great deal of force and eloqu.
ence, speaking nearly an hour.
The motion for non-suit was com
batted by E. s. Gearhart and Hon. H.
NJ. Hinckley with equal vigor and
eloquence, They protested that the ac-
tiou brought was clear case of tres
pass. which was the only available