Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1908-01-16
costs, fine, &C., being precisely the
same as in Sheppard s case.
Tuesdays Proceedings.

same as in Sheppard S case.
Tuesdays Proceedings.
.Six cases were disposed of at court
Tuesday. The most important of
these probably was the case of Com
monwealth VS.. William Spade, in
which the charge was selling liquor
to minor. The jury returned ver-
dict of guilty" James Smelling, ac-
cused of larceny. pleaded guilty. The
other cases were accompanied with
acquittal.
Immediately after convening Tues
day morning the case of Common
wealth VS.. James Daley, the charge
! being surety of the peace, was heard
before the court. The wife of the de-
fendaut being called to the stand told
her story, which showed that she had
been subject to abuse and i'll treatment
from her husband for a period of five
years. Harry Winniger, who saw the
defendant strike his wife on one oc-
casion, was a witness in the case.
The defendant declined to make a
formal statement, but entered gener-
al denial of the charge.
He was called before the court.
Judge Evans told him that he adjudg-
ed him guilty. In reply to question
the defendant said he was 81 yea1s Of
age and has been in Jail since Christ.
mas. He acknowledged that he drinks
to excess, but declared that it has been
only during year past, as previo us
to that period he was temperate.
Judge Evans told him that the court
was convinced that the family trou.
bles in his case were due to excessive
drinking, which would not be tolerat-
ed in this country.
The sentence of the court was that
James Daley pay the costs of prosecu-
tion. enter into recognizance in the
sum of three hundred dollars to keep
the peace toward all good people and
more especially his wife and to stand
committed until the sentence is com
piled with. The defendant was taken
back to Jail.
In the cases of Commonwealth VS.
Charles S. Hileman and Common
wealth VS.. Andrew Love, ,cross-actions
charging assault and battery, the
grand jury ignored the bill of each.
In the former case the costs were put
on Andrew Love and in the latter case
on Charles S. Hileman.
Hileman and Love were called be-
fore court where Judge Evans in a
friendly way informed them that both
had had the benefit of an object les
son. He sentenced each to pay the
costs as imposed by the grand jury
and informed him that he was in the
hands of the sheriff until the order
was complied with.
The first case that went to the Jury
was that of Commonwealth VS.. Robert
Mccormick. In this case the charge
was larceny, the defendant being ac-
cused of stealing coon skin robe
blankets and other articles out of bug
gies at the barn of William Fenster-
macher on the occasion of party
there on the night OF December 14th
Mccormick being without counsel the
court asked former District Attorney
Ralph Kisner to take charge of the
case. Mr.. Kisner informed Judge
Evans that he would not refuse to com
ply with any request that the court
might make, but he explained that it
is fact that may not be known to
the court that it seems to be an un-
derstanding ,among the prisoners in
Jail that they will not employ counsel,
but will rely upon the judge to supply
them with counsel free. In the pres.
ent instance he felt convinced that the
defendant was amply able to employ
counsel, as for several weeks past he
had been out on bail and was working
every day. On the whole he felt that
the practice complained of is an inn
position on the legal profession and
he thought that it was about time
that stand were taken to break it
up Under the circumstances Judge
Evans decided that in the present case
the court would look after the defend.
ants interest.
Our readers are familiar with all
the circumstances Of the affair, which
were printed in these columns at the
time of the hearing before Justice
Oglesby
Charles K. Boyer, the prosecutor,
was the first witness. He was follow.
ed by Daniel Billmeyer, Allen Wat.
son, George Tanner, william Britain
and Howard Vognetz. The witnesses
brought out all the facts relating tc
the loss of the articles and their sub.
sequent discovery in the defendants
buggy.
The defendant, Robert Mccormick,
was called to the stand to testify in
his own behalf. He was sent to the
sale at Fenstermacher' he said, to
make some purchases. He bought fifty
bushels of oats and a barrel of cider.
OF the cider, he confessed. that he
drank considerably too much and was
IL