The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1914-05-19

go to the ScnOOl IN the borough, the
reason being that the school at Birming-
ham was in an out-of-the-way place and
the walking was not as good or as safe
as that to the borough. Snyder lives
just over the borough line. The Board
of Education would not grant Mr.. Sny-
der the privilege of sending his children
to the borough school. The child who
was insisted should attend school is
little girl of eight years.
Jonathan H. Kelsey represented Mr..
Snyder and he had Gratz testify that
children who lived in the house now
occupied by Snyder had been allowed
to go to school in the borough. When
asked why there had been a distinction
Mr.. Gratz said: well, it was just
before election and they did not want to
make anybody mad" Mr.. Kelsey was
about to bring out other facts that he
thought would aid his case when it was
discovered that Mr.. Gratz did not have
in court any record of the attendance at
the school in question and that his case
was not complete and Judge Lippincott
at once dismissed it.
William A. Slaughter asked to have
review of the proceedings in court of
justice of the peace whereby Antonio
D'Ascensio is confined in jail. The ar
rest and commitment of this man oc-
Cured on Sunday and Mr.. Slaughter
commended that was not day on which
criminal proceedings could be had.
Prosecutor Atkinson took an opposite
view and said it was absurd to think
that criminal could not be arrested at
any time, especially on Sunday. If
that day were to be ruled out there
would be many instances where dis
orderly conduct would occur and if the
was not arrested at once he
might get away and not be apprehended
proceedings which could not take place
on Sunday were civil suits, in which he
stated it would not be legal to serve
papers. The court reserved its decision.
On Friday Judge Lippincott and a
jury listened to the appeal of Harry T.
Magee in case in which William A.
Jones was the defendant. Jones had a
sale of personal property at which Magee
bought horse that was represented, ac-
cording to Magee's story, as sound and
kind in every respect. The statement as
to the animals condition was made by
Edward Alcott, who seemed to have
charge of him. Some time later the |
horse developed the heaves and Magee |
refused to pay the note he had given for |
the purchase. Suit was brought and |
Jones recovered in the Justices court, |
and Magee appealed. The defence was |
that the horse was as represented. He
had been driven by Jones in a double
team for three years before the sale, had |
never shown symptoms of the heaves |
and had never been given medicine for |
that or any other ailment. 1t was a |
question whether the animal had de- |
veloped heaves or whether he was suffer |
ng from something else. The jury de- |
cided that the verdict in the Justices !
court was all right and affirmed it. |
George NJ. Hillman represented Magee,
V. Claude Palmer appearing for Jones.
It was Judge Lippincott's first expert |
snce in real ''hoss case" and he was
quite interested in the testimony that
vas presented.
Yesterday the court took up the appli-
;ation of Thomas J. Barrett to keep a |
hotel ON Knickerbocker Row, Roebling. |
Mr.. Barrett was represented by Jonathan
H. Kelsey, and Scovel & Harding.
Senator White and George Nj. Hillman
we're for the remonstrants. The court |
stated that the evidence must be con-
ined to the necessity for new place at |
Roebling, there already being one retail |
md two wholesale licenses at that place, |
With two more of the same sort at Flor |
,nce in the same township. Mr.. Bar
'ett was the first witness and he told of |
he reasons why he was applying for a |
license. He told of the rapid growth of |
Roebling since 1908, when he relinquish- |
ID the hotel in the town to the present
late. Even at the time he had the |
hotel Mr.. Barrett said he was not able to
all who applied for lodg- |
ng. The location of the house he now
seeks license for is close to the railroad
station and is on the main road to
Columbus and Bordentown, much travel |
ed, and hotel at that point would be
great accommodation to many travellers. |
He said the hotel building at Roebling
and the store where there is wholesale |
license are the property of the Roebling
Company, and Mr.. Barrett contended
that the remonstrance against him was
simply from desire to maintain mon
Opoly and have the Roebling properties
have the exclusive right to sell liquor.
Some substance for this allegation might
be given by the fact Mr.. Thompson,
foreman of the Roebling plant, was at
the side of the counsel for remonstrants
during the trial.
Francis Govolpa, a small boy, is in
Jail, having been sent up from Palmyra,
on charge of disorderly conduct. Since
his incarceration it has been charged
that he had stolen some money, but no
had been formerly lodged
against him. The commitment for dis
orderly conduct did not contain any
mention of term of imprisonment.
The boys father and mother were before
Judge Lippincott in the private room of
the latter and said they would be willing
to have the lad sent to the reform school
at Jamesburg. 1t will be necessary,
however, to have the boy charged with
some crime and complaint will be put
in on the larceny charge and then the
court will be at liberty to send the boy
to Jamesburg.
A number of witnesses testified tina
the hotel would be an accommodation
to the public.
Those opposed to licensing the place
testified that there was no necessity for
another hotel; that it would induce to
drunkenness among the employees of
the Roebling Company; that the present
hotel in Roebling always has given
ample accommodation to travellers, and is
a well-conducted place, care being eXer-
cised not to sell liquor to men of intern