Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1910-04-21
OPINION AND
ORDER Of COURT

a session of argument court was
held Monday forenoon with his Hon.
( or Charles O. Evans, and Associates
Frank G.. Blee and Hon. L. w. We'll
liver on the bench.
Argument ON the exceptions to the
report of reviewers in the Limestone
township road case, which has been
before court for some years past, oc-
cupied an hour and half
Hon. II. NJ. Hinckley, who represent
ed the exceptions, addressed court first
He took up the exceptions one by one
explaining his position and charging
errors fatal to the proceedings.
Among the points emphasized were
the following:
After the report had been set aside
there was no road to review An er-
ror arose from using an old petition,
which was no longer alive. \ new
petition should have been drawn.
There can be no review ON "a road con-
tirmed absolutely as was the road
the reviewers reported against The
reviewers were not properly appoint
ed. The petition for review was made
too late after three terms of court
had elapsed. The draft of the road was
not properly made, being an old draft,
of different road, showing on the
face of it that it was made months be-
fore the reviewers were appointed;
therefore, it was not part of their
proceedings. Lastly, the report of the
reviewers was not made at the next,
or March, term of court, when a con.
tinuance should have been asked for
under the circumstances existing.
The above errors, Mr. Hinckley held,
were fatal and urged that the report
of the reviewers be set aside
Hon. r. S. zimmerman opposed Mr..
Hinckley, taking the ground that the
entire proceedings were within the
sound discretion of the court. No new
petition was necessary. The court
merely referred back to the one filed
February /, 1908, which is still in the
. littlItAS anu NlbAtNA Allt NOAllOl VI llt
court.
The court took the papers in the
case.
The case of Joseph H. Baylor VS..
Mahoning township was also argued,
E. S. Gearhart appearing for the
plaintiff and William Kase West for
the defendant Mr.. West insisted that
the case is one that demands trial by
jury.
In this case the court also took the
papers.
Judge Evans handed down an opin-
ion and order of the court in the case
of Commonwealth VS.. John Beycrs, in
which the charge were threats, neg.
lect and non support The cases were
heard together, March 18th.
The opinion states that as viewed
by the court neither the husband nor
the wife is perhaps wholly to blame.
They have unfortunate and unhappy
differences and both parties are at
fault. 1t is the duty of the defendant
to support and maintain his wife and
minor children in keeping with their
station in life. At the same time the
wife and grown daughters should like
wise work for the welfare and best in
terest of the family.
We find as fact, the opinion states,
that the defendant has within the
meaning of the act of April l3, 1867,
neglected to maintain his wife and
children though continuing to reside
under the same roof with them and
has also threatened to do the wife
great bodily harm. The defendant
therefore is adjudged guilty.
And now, April IS, 1910 it is ord
cred and directed that the defendant,
John Beyers, pay to his wife the sum
of four dollars on Saturday of each
and every week, the first payment TO
be made on Saturday, the 23rd day of
April, 1910, and to enter into recog-
nizance with good and sufficient Sc
curities i'll the sum of two hundred
dollars conditioned to comply with
this order and keep the peace especial
ly towards his wife and family, the
costs to be paid by the defendant.
BY the court
CHARLES G. EVANS, p. J.