The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1907-12-10
Court.

| At Thursdays session of court Judg
Horner granted an order for the dis
charge of a mortgage on property for
merly owned by Herbert s. Wells, O
Burlington, given by Robert Jackson il
1854. The amount involved was $500.
1t was shown by Henry s. Haines, WHIT
was secretary of the Burlington Building
and Loan Association before its liquida
ton in 1861, that the mortgage in ques
ton had appeared as an asset of the as
ISOLATION, but it had been paid before the
idea of liquidation was entertained. Il
was also shown that the records in the
County Clerks Office contain no reference
to this mortgage. The matter was pre-
sented to court by Reginald Branch.
Emil Dunhart, of Riverside, aged 19
years, was the only prisoner to receive at
tention from the court.
Ida Witcraft and Mrs. Rosenfield, of
Riverside, had preferred charges of lar
ceny against Dunhart, who signed a
waiver of indictment and trial by Jury
and pleaded guilty. His booty consisted
of watches, money and other valuable ar
ticles.
William Miller, Camden lawyer, said
his appearance in behalf of the young
man might be an error of judgment, but
his presence was inspired by feeling of
the heart because of personal plea made
by the poor mother of the defendant, up
on whom she depended for support. She
had seven children and was hard WORK
ing woman. While waiting for a dispo-
sition of his case, Dunhart has spent the
past two months both in Moyamensing
prison, Philadelphia, at which place he
was arrested, and in the Burlington coun-
ty Jail. 1t was learned that part of the
stolen articles could be returned, and
counsel insisted that this should be done,
as the prosecuting witnesses would be sat-
isfied if they could get back some of the
more valuable articles. Silver watches
had been sold for old silver, but $50
gold watch was in pawn shop at Phil
adelphia, the ticket for which had been
destroyed. Counsel asked the indulgence
OF the court for a suspension of sentence
because of the tender years of the pris-
oner and the condition of his mother.
Counsel said Dunhart was not fit sub
ject for the Jail and he may have a fu-
ture.
In reply to questions propounded by the
court, Judge Horner learned that there
were several children over 16 years of age
upon whom the mother could look for as
sistance, and that Emil was of little use to
her. He went on tramp to Connecticut,
where he secured work in a mill.
Judge Horner stated that when Officer
Borton was able to inform the court that
partial restitution had been made the case
would be disposed of. The court would
not listen to suggestion that the prison
er be permitted to go to Philadelphia in
charge of an officer to hunt up some of
the articles that had been disposed of.
Interesting developments were brought
out after Dunhart had been taken back to
jail. A dress suit case, which Officer Bor-
ton had recovered, had already been
brought into court, but no reference was
made to 1t in the presence of Dunhart. 1t
was filled with valuable articles which
Borton said Dunhart had stolen at Bris-
toll. From the contents Borton displayed
a bottle of Knockout" drops, which
Dunhart evidently intended to use when
the opportunity presented itself These
matters were brought to the attention of
Judge Horner, who was also informed
that Dunhart had stolen sum of money
in Connecticut.
The appeal case was then heard of
Thomas Thompson, colored, of Moores
town, VS.. s. Fred Hall, who claimed 1852
for wages and for money paid out while
Thompson had charge of the defendants
farm.
While on the stand Thompson said he
didn't consider that he had any learning,
and he could not tell when he began or
when he quit working for Hall. He
claimed wages for 134 months. 1t had
been his custom on the 10th day of each
month to make mark in his book to in.
dictate the passing of month Witness
claimed that he had paid out considerable
of his own money for help on the farm
and for articles used in the house. He
said he bought the latter at the request of
Miss Minnie Hall, joint owner of the
farm, but not the employer of Thompson.
Mr. Hall testified that he did not owe
Thompson anything when he quit the
farm. He told Thompson never to pur-
chase anything without consulting him.
Thompson had hired work done which he
should have performed himself
AS the claim for wages was undisputed
by evidence, the court gave Judgment to
the plaintiff for $109 so.