The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1908-06-04
ARGUMENT COURT.

court was held last Monday by
Judge Evans, when number Of
cases were argued.
Among them was that of the
Commonwealth VS.. James Harri-
son, who with several other citizens
of Fishing Creek township was
charged with violation of the fish
laws in using trap or set means
in taking fish. The case was heard
by Justice of the Peace Jacoby and
came into court upon an appeal by
the defendants from summary con-
viction. The Commonwealth was
represented by District Attorney
Small and John G.. Rarman, Esq,
while Fred Ikeler, Esq, represent
ed the defendant.
There was no dispute as to the
facts in the case, the whole ques-
ton being one of law as to whether
the defendants had violated the Act
of Assembly in the manner in
which they had taken the fish.
Hence to avoid costs, ETC., case
stated was prepared, and the mat
ter came on for hearing.
Mr.. Ikeler for the defendant,
and Mr.. Harman for the Common
wealth, made very comprehensive
arguments.
Another case of interest was the
argument of the petition for rule
to quash the appeal from County
Auditors report VS.. w. H. Fisher,
George w. Sterner and William
Bogart. J. B. Robson, Esq, and
H. Mont. Smith, Esq, represented
the rule, and c. A. Small, Esq,
and w. H. Rhawn, Esq, repre-
sented the county.
The case was an echo of the i'll
fated Mifflinville bridge which the
Commissioners contracted to have
built for $o3,9S5. They had paid
on the contract about $6S, 900 when
the bridge was carried away. Sub
sequently the Commissioners paid
the contractors $23,9S5 which it is
claimed under the terms OF the con-
tract was due to them. This pay
ment was allowed by the County
Auditors and certain taxpayers ap-
pealed from this action. They
| failed to make their appeal good,
and the present board of County
Commissioners upon petition was
made a party to the proceedings.
1t was held by the petitioners that
the payments were made to the
contractors in conformity to the Act
of 1905 That in order to have the
state rebuild the bridge it was nee
essary that they should not only
turn over to the State all material
on hand but also show that the
contractors had been paid In full,
and also turn over to the State any
balance remaining of the original
contract price, which was S93,9s5.
In this case they had about 81, 900
left which was paid over to the
State. The county had not lost a
cent, nor haG it any interest in the
matter at all. If the Commission
ers had not done as they did the
State never would have rebuilt the
bridge. They also held that the
appeal was defective. Counsel for
the county held that the only ques-
tons in this case were whether the
appeal was properly taken, and
whether the merits of the case were
such as to warrant the Court in
| granting an issue and have the
whole matter settled by trial by
jury.
Other business before the Court
was the following:
James II. Coleman, guardian of
Robert Ward, presented petition
asking permission of the Court to
sell at private sale farm belonging
to the ward in Beaver township %
| Abraham Rarig for $3o5o. The
Court ordered the sale and approx
ed the guardians bond.
In the matter OF the expense ac-
count OF c. Fred Lenhart the Court
approved the bond of the except